Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/30/2022 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 | |
| HB363 | |
| HB60 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 363 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 30, 2022
1:34 p.m.
1:34:41 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Sponsor; Amory Lelake, Staff,
Representative Bryce Edgmon; Micaela Fowler, Administrative
Services Director, Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Representative Matt Claman,
Sponsor.
SUMMARY
HB 363 BROADBAND: OFFICE, GRANTS, PARITY
HB 363 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 60 PUBLIC SCHOOLS: MENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION
HB 60 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 363
"An Act establishing the office of broadband; creating
the broadband parity adjustment fund; establishing the
Statewide Broadband Advisory Board; and providing for
an effective date."
1:35:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, SPONSOR, introduced the bill.
He explained that the intent of the bill was straight
forward. He wanted to share the circumstances that led to
the legislation. He reported that in May 2021, Governor
Dunleavy issued an administrative order to create a Task
Force on Broadband in anticipation of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) passing Congress, which
happened on November 15, 2021. The eleven member taskforce
held 32 meetings during the summer and fall of 2021 that
included stakeholder engagements and public testimony. The
taskforce finished its work and submitted its report in
November 2021, prior to the passage of the infrastructure
bill. He recounted that the House Finance Committee held a
two hour hearing with the Task Force on Broadband and its
recommendations on February 1, 2022. Subsequently, he
realized that the issue was significant and should not
solely be left up to the executive branch to unilaterally
establish a Broadband office in a state agency to be the
recipient of the potential billions of dollars for
broadband. The funding was money that would actually lead
to deployment of the highest quality and most affordable
broadband that current technology offered. He noted that
the backstory led to crafting HB 363. He had to consider
how to create a bill when there were no statutory
provisions related to broadband. Therefore, he turned to
the Broadband Taskforce for assistance in crafting the
bill. He emphasized that the bill was almost exclusively
built off of the taskforces recommendations with the
exception of minor changes made in a prior committee. He
summarized the bill. He reiterated that HB 363 was
straightforward and had three components. The first was to
establish the Broadband Taskforce. The second created a
Broadband Adjustment Parity Fund and the third component
created an advisory board comprised of a diversified group
of Alaskans to advise and support the broadband office and
play a key role in terms of creating the necessary
partnerships in order to deploy broadband across the state;
industry, stakeholders, state, and multiple federal agency
partners. He viewed the larger picture that included the
competitiveness of the telecommunications industry, the
vastness and challenging terrain of Alaska, 65 percent
federal ownership of Alaska lands, and other circumstances
that made it challenging to get the infrastructure and
technology in place. He believed that once broadband was
deployed it would play a significant role in education,
public safety , government services, telehealth, etc. He
noted the potential billions of dollars coming into the
state in the realm of about $65 billion in 7 different
buckets of money. He delineated that $42.5 billion of the
funding would flow through one bucket called the
Broadband Advisory Equity Deployment Fund. Another
smaller source or bucket of funding was $2 billion for
tribal connectivity, which would not be dispersed through
the broadband office, but separately via relationships with
tribes and consortiums. He noted that there were also
technical aspects of the bill.
1:42:42 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked to hear a sectional analysis and
explanation of the changes made in the previous committee.
AMORY LELAKE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, indicated
that the bill would create a brand new section of law
between the Alaska Forest and Marketing Program and the
Alaska Revolving Loan Program. She reiterated that
broadband was not contemplated in Alaska law and the bill
charted new territory. She provided the sectional
analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: Creates a new section, AS 44.33.910, to
establish the Office of Broadband in the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED)
and details the Office of Broadband's purpose, powers,
and duties, to include:
1. Expand broadband access and digital equity in the
state through federal, tribal, and local
partnerships, while maintaining technological
neutrality, with prioritization of service
expansion in the following order: unserved areas,
underserved areas, and anchor institutions.
Ms. Lelake pointed out that in Section 1, Tribal was added
by the prior committee, House Labor and Commerce Committee
(HLC). The prioritization of service expansion was defined
in IIJA and recommended by the taskforce.
2. Develop a procedure for adoption of broadband
service maps that incorporates the forthcoming Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) maps in accordance
with the Federal Broadband DATA Act, streamline
permitting processes, and encourage development of in-
state workforce
Ms. Lelake elaborated that HLC clarified that the
development of an in-state workforce would come from the
University of Alaskas (UA) existing apprenticeship
programs and technical workforce programs.
3. Establish a grant program and broadband parity
adjustments:
a. AS 44.33.915 establishes the Broadband Parity
Adjustment Fund (BPAF);
b. The BPAF is a separate fund in the treasury
which allows for grants to offset the costs of
broadband services for eligible consumers;
c. Makes grants to eligible beneficiaries to
improve the performance of and access to
broadband across the state;
d. Funds can come from money appropriated by the
legislature, federal funds, and interest earned
on the fund balance;
4. Review and consideration of the recommendations of
the Statewide Broadband Advisory Board (The SBAB)
established under AS 44.33.920.
Ms. Lelake interjected that the BPAF was recommended by the
taskforce and was included in a letter of comment from the
governor to the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA). The adjustment fund ensured
affordability for rural Alaska residents who paid high
costs for relatively small amounts of bandwidth.
1:46:57 PM
Ms. Lelake continued to review the sectional analysis:
The board is:
a. Composed of 9 members appointed by the Governor,
and commissioners from DCCED and the Department of
Education & Early Development (DEED) and two ex-
officio, non-voting members from the legislature
appointed by presiding officers
b. Created to provide an inclusive process for a broad
number of stakeholder groups including tribal, local
government, school districts, The University, health
care sector, industry, and consumers
c. Directs the SBAB to create a broadband technical
working group.
Section 2: This Act sunsets on June 30, 2030
Section 3: Establishes an immediate effective date
under AS 01.10.070(c)
Ms. Lelake indicated that that the two ex-officio members
were added by the HLC committee, added three year term
lengths, and specified that two members of the advisory
board must be from unserved and underserved communities.
She furthered that the broadband technical working group
would be comprised of industry providers in the state. The
sunset date allowed enough time for the projects to be
completed.
1:48:46 PM
Representative Johnson recognized that there was
substantial incoming money for tribal entities. She looked
at the board makeup that included a member of a tribal
government and a member of an Alaska Native Corporation.
She wondered how the two members would bring a different
perspective to the board.
Representative Edgmon replied that the bill had to strike a
balance between the size of the board but accommodate all
the stakeholders. He elucidated that a technical subgroup
was established that would be comprised of industry
representatives to advise the broadband advisory group. A
component of broadband infrastructure funding was designed
to provide broadband to unserved and underserved areas. He
noted that 182 communities in the state were unserved. He
determined that adding the two Alaska Native members added
the perspective of the larger corporate presence and the
tribal non-profit element as a critical element of serving
unserved and underserved populations. He mentioned that
areas of the state had significant Alaska Native
populations like in areas of the Matanuska-Susitna Valley
(Mat-Su) that were technically underserved.
1:51:33 PM
Ms. Lelake added that the advisory board was directly
derived from the taskforce recommendations that included
tribal and Native members.
Representative Johnson stated that Native corporations had
worldwide reach and innumerable corporate resources and
interests. She asked if any of the corporations were
involved in broadband buildout and if they had any
expertise to offer.
Representative Edgmon responded that Doyon Regional
Corporation informed him that they were working on placing
fiber optic cable along the Yukon River. He guessed that
other Native Corporations were working on obtaining
broadband funding and become part of a larger web of
partners in getting broadband to remote parts of the state.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what the term technical neutrality
meant. Ms. Lelake answered that technological neutrality
was a term that existed throughout the infrastructure bill.
She elaborated that it meant one technology could not be
chosen over another. The requirements of speed and latency
determined what technology would be approved for a grant
rather than it being named in the bill.
1:54:20 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz noticed that the bill named the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) as
the agency tasked with carrying out the broadband
functions. He thought it made good sense but noted that
there was not another department that had been cut more in
recent years. He asked whether the bill provided the
department the means to handle the demands of the bill. He
mentioned that the COVID relief funding distribution had
mixed results in the state.
Co-Chair Merrick noted that DCCED was online.
Representative Edgmon highlighted that every state and
every territory had been granted $100 million in set
aside funding. The state had to prove that the necessary
structure was in place to qualify for the funding. He
remarked that a significant portion of the funding would be
awarded through NTIA. He stated that the bill was
minimalistic in relation to taskforce recommendations
because the state did not have all of the regulations from
NTIA yet. He expected that on May 16, 2022, the NTIA would
issue a Notice of Funding Opportunity that would offer
more information regarding competing for grant funding. He
offered that each state needed to file a Notice of Letter
of Intent alerting the NTIA that Alaska intended to
participate. The letter qualified the state for 5 percent
of the $100 million or $5 million in set aside funding. The
seed money would fund the broadband office, administration,
planning , and interfacing. He anticipated that no General
Funds (GF) would be expended in the effort for many years.
1:58:27 PM
Ms. Lelake added that the initial $5 million was expressly
for planning purposes and the department would speak to the
specific positions that were necessary to obtain the
Eligible Use and Planning Pre-Deployment Funds awarded by
NTIA.
Representative LeBon cited page 4 of the bill showing a
list of board members, specifically the broadband industry
member. He asked how the broadband industry member would be
selected given the different technologies that existed. Ms.
Lelake answered that the bill contemplated that the
governor would appoint the industry member. However, the
technical subcommittee group of which the broadband
industry member would be part of would represent all of the
industry's technologies. The subcommittee and the industry
member would offer recommendations to the advisory board.
Representative LeBon did not want a particular type of
service to be excluded because they did not have a voice
at the table.
Representative Wool referenced the mention of consumer
representation. He asked for detail pertaining to who that
would be and how was the member chosen. Ms. Lelake answered
that the member representing consumers would be appointed
by the governor. She did not know how the governor would
select the person. She hoped that it would be someone from
an unserved or underserved community. She commented that
the advisory board was intended to be made up of broadband
consumers with the exception of the industry member and
technical working group. Representative Wool relayed that
he spoke with the sponsor about the importance of consumer
representation on the board. He had mentioned that Alaska
Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG) as a possible
group, or the Regulatory Affairs Public Advocacy group
(RAPA) might best represent consumers. He wanted to ensure
consumers were well looked after since everyone was a
broadband consumer.
2:02:26 PM
Representative Edgmon underscored that that the advisory
board members composition was taken from the Broadband
Taskforces recommendations.
Co-Chair Merrick asked the department to review the fiscal
note.
MICAELA FOWLER, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
relayed that the department was appreciative of the
legislation. The department believed that the bill offered
clear legislative intent for how it should proceed with the
broadband program. She explained that the funding for the
program was limited to the $5 million referenced by
Representative Edgmon. Initial costs for the office will be
funded from federal revenue from the Broadband Equity,
Access, and Deployment Program (BEAD), that would become
available once DCCED submitted its Letter of Intent. The
letter of intent could not be submitted until after the May
16, 2022, Notice of Funding Opportunity was released.
Co-Chair Merrick asked how the department knew it would
receive a portion of the $5 million. Ms. Fowler answered
that it was specified in the BEAD program guidelines. Co-
Chair Merrick clarified that the $5 million was not a
competitive grant. Ms. Fowler responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Fowler discussed the published fiscal impact fiscal
note for DCCED, Commissioners Office (FN1 (CED). She
relayed that the initial staffing was conservative to avoid
overstaffing the office on the frontend since there were
still unknowns until DCCED received the funding opportunity
notice. She delineated that three initial positions would
be needed beginning in FY 23. She listed the positions:
Director of Broadband, Broadband Technician, and a Project
Administrator. The administration deduced that it was
important to attract candidates that understood broadband
and had some level of technical expertise and also were
able to communicate with non-technical staff and
stakeholders.
2:05:55 PM
Ms. Fowler continued to review the fiscal note. She
indicated that in FY 2024, the department would hire two
additional grant administrator positions. She reminded the
committee that DCCED would administer grants through the
BEAD program to the private sector to build out broadband.
She furthered that the bill mandated that travel costs
associated with the board were not borne by the state.
Therefore, travel would be limited but DCCED budgeted
$15,000 designated for staff travel rather than board
travel to ensure visits to unserved and underserved
communities. She delineated that regulations would be
needed to define grant processes and set the broadband
offset rate. In addition, a considerable increase in legal
support services were anticipated to ensure compliance with
federal laws and for development of grant regulations. She
noted that DCCED was striving for a clean grant process
that was carefully laid out so it would not be misconstrued
that the department chose winners and losers. She offered
that DCCED expected some commodities costs, and the grant
line was indeterminate. She alluded that in FY 24, the
department would likely request either a capitalization for
the parity fund or some other further legislative
appropriation action.
Representative Johnson deduced that the three positions
would not be needed once the projects were completed. Ms.
Fowler answered that the legislation had a sunset date. The
department created the positions as temporary until the
federal funds were exhausted.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the $297,000 for the three
temporary exempt positions. He inquired how DCCED derived
the figure. He guessed that the jobs would be competitive
since the broadband program was nationwide. He wondered
whether the amount was sufficient to attract capable
applicants.
2:10:31 PM
Ms. Fowler replied that the department believed the
positions were appropriately ranged. She relayed that a
typical director position was a range 27 and the temporary
director position was a range 26, which aligned with a
directors salary of a smaller division. She disclosed that
the department was looking for parity with similar state
positions. Vice-Chair Ortiz stated that it made sense when
comparing the wages to the government structure, but he did
not know it was possible to fit the state salary structure
into the demand for highly technical candidates.
2:11:56 PM
Representative Carpenter cited the definition of "anchor
institution" on page 3, subsection (e) and turned to page
4, lines 18 through 26 that listed the breakdown of the 9
additional members as follows:
(A) a local government;
(B) an Alaska Native corporation;
(C) a tribal government;
(D) a school district;
(E) the University of Alaska;
(F) the health care community;
(G) the business community;
(H) the broadband industry; and
(I) a broadband consumer.
Representative Carpenter he deemed that (A), (D), (E), (F),
represented anchor institutions. He wondered whether Alaska
Native corporation, tribal government, the business
community, the broadband industry, and a broadband consumer
were considered anchor institutions.
Ms. Lelake answered that the definition of anchor
institutions was included in the IIJA bill. She stated the
definition, an entity that facilitates the greater use of
broadband service by vulnerable populations including low
income, unemployed, and aged individuals, such as schools,
libraries, health clinics or centers, hospital and other
medical providers, public safety entities, institution of
higher education, public housing organization, and
community support organization. She interpreted it to
mean the anchor institutions were a priority for funding in
the infrastructure bill; therefore, having individuals from
anchor institutions on the board made sense. She would
follow up. Representative Carpenter discerned that tribal
governments would fit into the definition but questioned
whether Native Corporations or other corporations would fit
into the category. He believed that it mattered. He drew
attention to page 4, line 16, subsection (4) and read, at
least two of whom live in an unserved
or underserved area. He moved to page 2, lines 5 through
10, and read,
(c) The office of broadband shall
(1) prioritize broadband service expansion in the
following order of priority: (A) unserved areas; (B)
underserved areas; and (C) anchor institutions;
Representative Carpenter noted that unserved areas was
listed as the first priority, underserved as the second,
and finally anchor institutions. He observed that there
were no specific entities listed in the bill as a priority
under unserved or underserved areas and only two members of
the board were required to live in the areas. He emphasized
that the remainder of the members of the board were not
from unserved and underserved areas and were listed third
in priority for the funding. He surmised that the majority
of the board could be from non-unserved or non-underserved
areas. He asked what happened if there was an anchor
institution from an unserved or underserved area. He
thought that there was a risk that the composition of the
board could be made up completely of anchor institutions.
2:16:15 PM
Representative Edgmon thought it was a great question. He
pointed out that they were creating a new section of law.
He believed invited testimony in the future would likely
illuminate the issue. He reminded the member that the
advisory board was derived from the taskforces
recommendations. He shared from personal experience that in
order for rural communities to receive any type of service
it typically happens through an anchor institution like a
school, health clinic, troopers, or Village Public Safety
Officer (VPSO) office. He pondered whether having more
unserved and underserved members could be beneficial. He
welcomed the insight and felt that he could not answer the
question in depth. He deferred to the chair of the
taskforce to address Representative Carpenters concern.
Representative Carpenter opined that if there was a
broadband consumer as one of the board members competing
against six anchor institutions for projects, it was a
David and Goliath situation. He was concerned it was
stacked heavily toward funding institutions and the rural
communities would become second priority.
2:18:49 PM
Representative Edgmon answered that the grant funding
required compliance with regulations and the state would
need to work with NTIA, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and possibly the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA). He furthered that the broadband
deployment services would be measured, and the performance
evaluated to ensure what the federal program wanted to
achieve, providing high quality internet to rural areas in
a manner comparable to urban areas. He concluded that the
funding had to achieve the goals.
Representative Rasmussen understood that any decisions for
projects regardless of the makeup of the advisory board was
to serve unserved communities first followed by underserved
communities. She doubted that the composition of the task
force would supersede the priority requirement.
Representative Edgmon outlined that the first thing that
was necessary was to determine the unserved and underserved
areas of the state. He delineated that it would happen via
an exhaustive mapping process that was not yet completed.
The broadband office would coordinate and help shepherd the
mapping process. However, there were many small communities
scattered throughout the state where an anchor institution
rose above the priorities of unserved and underserved
because that was all that was operating in the community.
He agreed that unserved and underserved would likely remain
the priority, but he was uncertain.
Ms. Lelake interjected that Representative Rasmussen was
correct. She elucidated that the federal law made it clear
through definition the unserved and underserved were listed
as the top priorities. She ascertained that once unserved
and underserved were equipped with broadband, anchor
institutions would also be equipped with broadband since
they existed within those communities. She furthered that
the advisory board would not make decisions regarding
grants. Grants would be determined by the Office of
Broadband and what was established through law. The board
was established for stakeholder engagement. She emphasized
that it was absolutely clear in state and federal law that
unserved and underserved communities were prioritized
first.
2:22:52 PM
Representative Carpenter had understood the point
reiterated by Ms. Lelake. He was uncertain how it would
work in practice. He used his community as an example. His
community was comprised of a school and unserved and
underserved area. He listed the members of the advisory
board and wondered whether the school was served first or
if consumers were prioritized. He questioned whether the
board had the right influencers to get the money out to
the unserved areas. He opined that the board was stacked
with individuals form anchor institutions.
Representative Wool referred back to his comment on AKPIRG
and RAPA and noted that they were consumer advocate
organizations. He did not want just anyone on the consumer
seat he favored someone experienced with representing the
consumer.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if there were other similar pieces
of legislation that dealt with setting up the broadband
infrastructure. Representative Edgmon answered that it was
the only piece of legislation in the House and there was
also a Senate companion bill.
Ms. Lelake added that there was an identical bill, SB 234
in the Senate introduced by the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee. She noted that there were other bills that
established a broadband authority.
HB 363 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:25:41 PM
AT EASE
2:31:12 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 60
"An Act relating to mental health education."
2:31:16 PM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated that the bill was previously
heard on March 17, 2022, and the committee would consider 7
amendments.
Representative Thompson noted that the Senate version was
in third reading on the Senate Floor and if it passed the
body, it would be referred to the House Finance Committee.
He indicated that the amendments offered by the committee
were not in the Senate version. He recommended waiting
until the Senate version was referred to the committee.
Representative Thompson MOVED to TABLE HB 60 until it was
known whether the Senate would pass the bill.
2:32:32 PM
AT EASE
2:35:23 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED.
2:35:51 PM
AT EASE
2:39:09 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Thompson WITHDREW his motion.
Representative Edgmon stated that a motion to table was
nondebatable. He thought there should be an opportunity for
the public to hear discussion regarding the motion. He
stated the issue as he understood it. He voiced that the
Senate companion bill, SB 80 would likely pass and be
referred to the committee. The question was whether the
committee act on the amendments during the hearing and
duplicate the process when the Senate bill was referred. He
noted that there were no formal rules to guide the
decision, but it was customary to defer to members from its
own body.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, preferred to take up
the amendments during the current meeting. He furthered
that the amendments that passed could be taken up in a
single amendment or a Committee Substitute (CS) if the
Senate bill was referred.
Representative Wool asked if the other co-chair was online
to vote.
Co-Chair Foster was present online.
Representative Wool thought that if the committee currently
debated the amendments the actions could act as guidance
and did not necessarily mean adopted amendments had to be
rolled into the Senate version of the bill.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that there was a firm 3:30 stop
time.
Representative Edgmon thought Representative Thompson
should be able to make his case.
Representative Thompson explained that he wanted to avoid
the possibility of taking up the amendments twice.
Representative Thompson MOVED to TABLE the bill until SB 80
was referred to committee.
2:43:02 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen, Thompson, Carpenter,
Merrick, Foster
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Wool
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
HB 60 was TABLED.
HB 60 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:44:10 PM
AT EASE
2:44:32 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
2:44:57 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 363 Letters of Support and Public Testimony CSHB363 (LC).pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 363 Supporting Document - Sectional Analysis CSHB363 (LC).pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 363 Supporting Document - Sponsor Statement CSHB363 (LC).pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 363 Supporting Document - Summary of Changes CSHB363 (LC).pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 363 Governor's Task Force on Broadband November 2021 Final Report Link 032922.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 60 Public Testimony Rec'd by 032222_.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 60 |
| HB 60 Letter Of Support 040322.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 60 |