Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/22/2024 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB116 | |
| HB144 | |
| HB45 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 22, 2024
9:03 a.m.
9:03:15 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Edgmon called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Julie Coulombe, Sponsor; Brodie Anderson,
Staff, Representative Neal Foster; Edra Morledge, Staff,
Representative Julie Coulombe; Representative Justin
Ruffridge, Sponsor; Bud Sexton, Staff, Representative
Justin Ruffridge; Representative Mike Prax, Sponsor; Riley
Nye, Staff, Representative Mike Prax.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Michael Williams, Acting Deputy Director, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue.
SUMMARY
HB 45 PFD CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL FUND AND PF
HB 45 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 116 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ACCT APPROPRIATIONS
CSHB 116(STA) was REPORTED out of committee with
eight "do pass" recommendations and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new
indeterminate fiscal note from the House Finance
Committee for the Department of Public Safety and
one new indeterminate fiscal note from the House
Finance Committee for the Department of
Corrections.
HB 144 REPEAL EDUCATION TAX CREDITS SUNSET
HB 144 was REPORTED out of committee with four
"do pass" recommendations, three "no
recommendation" recommendations, and two "amend"
recommendations and with one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Revenue and one new
zero note from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development.
Co-Chair Edgmon reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to appropriations from the
restorative justice account."
9:04:58 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon asked the bill sponsor to provide a brief
recap on the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JULIE COULOMBE, SPONSOR, explained that the
bill reorganized the percentages of the funds that passed
through the Restorative Justice Account that fund non-
profit organizations through the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) for services for
victims and domestic violence and sexual assault programs.
The legislation changed the share of the funds, reversing
the share for CDVSA in the Department of Corrections (DOC).
Co-Chair Edgmon asked staff to provide a review of the
fiscal notes.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
provided a review of two House Finance Committee fiscal
notes. He began with the DOC fiscal note, OMB component
number 2952. The policy discussed in the bill switched
percentages coming from the Restorative Justice Account.
The fiscal notes reflected the policy in the bill. He
discussed fund sources and noted the Restorative Justice
Fund had a decrement of $7 million for the FY 25 budget
(the amount available) and would be appropriated in FY 25.
There was a fund source swap to UGF for the corresponding
equal amount, and in the outgoing years the funds were
indeterminate. The fiscal note assumed a 3 percent
allocation to DOC. He pointed out that the UGF FY 25
appropriation replaced the restorative justice funds, and
also allowed the department time to transition to a lower
allocation of restorative justice funds in outgoing years.
9:09:10 AM
Mr. Anderson reviewed OMB component number 521 for CDVSA in
the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The note reflected
an increase of $7.5 million transferred from DOC to the
Restorative Justice Funds. He noted that the grants and
benefits line showed the same amount available. The bill
allocated 79 percent to CDVSA and victims.
9:10:20 AM
Representative Josephson observed that the fiscal notes
would get a stamp if the bill was moved out of committee.
He noted that the funds in question were not in the
operating budget but asked if the funds would be considered
by the Conference Committee and would effectively be in the
budget.
Mr. Anderson answered affirmatively and explained that the
fiscal notes would replace the previous fiscal notes in the
packets. The Conference Committee would consider and
negotiate a fiscal note package. Conference Committee would
have the ability to reconcile the operating budget
components, but after conference committee approval the
bill would enforce whatever funding had been allocated for
FY 25.
Co-Chair Johnson asked if there were two or three fiscal
notes.
Mr. Anderson replied that there were two fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Johnson asked if the fiscal notes were a decrement
to DOC.
Mr. Anderson replied that DOC would be held harmless with
no cuts visible for FY 25. There was a fund source swap
between the Restorative Justice Fund and the undesignated
general funds (UGF). In outgoing years, there was no UGF
designated in FY 26 through FY 30. He explained that the
DOC fiscal note would only fund FY 25, and in FY 26 DOC
would be required to request an increment in future years.
The $7.5 million would not enter the base budget in
perpetuity until requested the following year.
Co-Chair Johnson stated her understanding that at some
point incarcerated individuals' Permanent Fund Dividends
(PFDs) were garnished to go to the fund. She recalled that
the fund was renamed as a restorative justice account, and
most of the funding went to offset the cost of having
people incarcerated. She did not want the situation to
happen again and noted that the fund was originally set up
to offset the cost of incarceration rather than benefit
prisoners. She wanted to ensure that there was a name
change and they were now taking a large portion of the
account. She thought it was a significant fiscal load.
9:16:08 AM
Representative Coulombe relayed that the fund was
established in 1988. In 2018 there was a policy change, and
it was determined that more funding would go towards
victims instead of offsetting DOC costs. The percentages
laid out at the time still favored DOC, and she thought the
bill was another step to fulfill the policy changes that
happened in 2018 to restore victims. She mentioned people
sharing concerns that victims were not getting restitution
or restoration, and the bill was one vehicle to help
stabilize efforts for victims. She mentioned that in
statute CDVSA was required to put together a prevention
program, but it did not have the money to do so. The
funding would aid the agency with doing more preventative
education programs. She added that the House had put $3.7
million in the budget for CDVSA and thought that the amount
would be balanced.
Representative Galvin thanked Representative Coulombe for
finding some way to ensure victims were better supported.
She understood the original intent of the fund may have
been different than the current use, but thought the
legislature needed to find some common ground to support
victims. She supported the bill. She asked about the
funding. She observed that the act was effective on July 1,
2024. She understood the fund was filled with PFD dollars
that happened in October. She asked if FY 24 dollars would
be rolled into the fund first.
EDRA MORLEDGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JULIE COULOMBE,
confirmed that the funds were from the PFD in 2023.
Co-Chair Edgmon understood that the PFD funds were
dispersed in the year after the calendar year of the
dividend.
Representative Ortiz supported the bill. He wanted to
clearly understand the fiscal implications. He asked if the
intent of the bill would direct more funding resources to
victims in the first year of its enactment. He asked if the
money would be replaced with General Fund money, and there
would not be any immediate impact on DOC.
Mr. Anderson replied affirmatively. The DOC would be held
harmless for FY 25.
Co-Chair Edgmon noted there were no amendments for the
bill.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 116(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 116(STA) was REPORTED out of
committee with eight "do pass" recommendations and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new
indeterminate fiscal note from the House Finance Committee
for the Department of Public Safety and one new
indeterminate fiscal note from the House Finance Committee
for the Department of Corrections.
9:22:38 AM
AT EASE
9:23:45 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act relating to education tax credits; and
providing for an effective date by repealing the
effective date of secs. 1, 2, and 21, ch. 61, SLA
2014."
9:23:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, SPONSOR, relayed that the
bill would repeal the sunset on the education tax credits.
He explained that under the tax credit program,
organizations could give funds to educational institutions
and receive a tax credit. The program had been well
utilized since the late 1980s. He supported repealing the
sunset to continue the successful program.
BUD SEXTON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, was
available for questions.
Co-Chair Johnson commented that she liked sunsets in
general. She thought there was likely a reason to have
sunsets in order to bring eyes on the issue periodically.
She wanted to get a sense of why the sponsor thought the
status was different or what had changed from the original
intent.
Representative Ruffridge saw there was a need for sunsets
in periodic language for a new bill. He pointed out that
the program had been in place for almost 40 years. He
believed there was a lack of stability that came with
bringing something forward for sunset extension and having
it change. He noted that every time the program had been up
for sunset there had been alterations of the structure of
the program, which he thought could lead to confusion. He
supported the bill for the purposes of stability and
mentioned subsequent slight changes to the program which he
thought added to instability.
9:28:40 AM
Representative Galvin highlighted a list in the members
packets with frequently asked questions (copy on file). She
referenced a recent legal ruling [related to funding for
correspondence programs] that seemed to take out pretty
significant pieces of statute related to correspondence
funding. She stated the tax credit program listed nonprofit
agencies. She knew there could be private nonprofit
programs that were religious, and thought the last ruling
was related to anything related to religious institutions.
She asked for clarification.
Representative Ruffridge replied that the ruling made the
previous week had nothing to do with the program. He wanted
to be careful not to conflate a situation that was ruled
unconstitutional because it took some big steps forward to
say that public money could be used in some cases for
private or religious instruction. He mentioned the statute
that was ultimately ruled against, which he thought had
some incongruencies. The ruling had to do with state
dollars that were appropriated. He stated that if any of
the members donated funding to their church, they would
apply for a tax credit. He emphasized that a tax credit was
not the same as a legislative body appropriating funds for
a specific purpose and then being granted a credit. He
thought the U.S. and state tax codes showed the difference.
He reiterated the issue was very separate. He emphasized
that the topic at hand was a donation made with private
dollars.
Co-Chair Edgmon clarified that the money went through the
normal appropriation process. He asked about a technical
training school.
Representative Ruffridge replied, "No." He explained there
would be a reduction in revenue to the state in the dollar
amounts that the state was allowing an entity to not pay
tax for.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if the proceeds went directly to the
beneficiary.
Representative Ruffridge explained that if a person owned a
company, and the company donated directly to an institution
of the persons choice, the person would apply to the
Department of Revenue (DOR) to receive a tax credit.
9:34:50 AM
Representative Galvin received some emails from individuals
who were concerned, and she appreciated the explanations.
She considered corporations that paid taxes to DOR
including mining license tax, fisheries, oil and gas, and
maybe one or two others. She understood that companies
could chose instead to make a partial donation. She noted
there were limits on the donation and she believed the
House had passed legislation raising the limit to $3
million. She stated that corporations could submit proof
they had donated to any number of organizations to receive
a lower tax bill. She asked for verification it was
considered a tax credit.
Representative Ruffridge replied affirmatively.
Representative Galvin stated that her constituents wanted
to understand that it meant less revenue to the general
fund, but it also meant that organizations were directly
supported through private entities.
Representative Ruffridge responded affirmatively.
Representative Josephson stated that he did not believe the
question was so simple. Generally speaking, when the
audience was over 18, the courts had less anxiety. For
example, the Alaska Bible College was more acceptable than
Lumen Christi [Catholic High School] in Anchorage. He did
not know of any problem with lifting the sunset, but he did
not believe the legal question was so clear.
9:38:06 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon thought the line of questioning and
commentary was good. He asked Representative Ruffridge for
closing remarks.
Representative Ruffridge appreciated the opportunity to
present the bill. He was happy to talk about some of the
questions offline. He stated that the program had been well
supported and had existed for many years without any such
challenges. He believed continuing the program was in the
best interest of the state and education programs supported
by the program including the University of Alaska, which
received a large benefit from the program.
Representative Hannan asked if there was a companion bill
in the Senate.
Representative Ruffridge replied affirmatively. He noted
that it was proof of the point he had made earlier in the
meeting. He explained that the Senate had made changes to
some of the dollar amounts and he found it more significant
than a simple sunset repeal.
Mr. Sexton added that the Senate version was not a true
companion bill. He detailed that the Senate version
extended the sunset and HB 144 was a repeal. Additionally,
the Senate version increased the amount of deduction levels
and the cap. The current bill kept the levels as is. The
current amounts were established in 2018 under HB 223 and
lowered the deduction amount to the current level of about
50 percent with a $1 million cap. In light of the state's
fiscal situation, HB 144 proposed keeping the levels as is
to make sure the impact was reasonable and balanced.
9:41:14 AM
Representative Hannan asked what the recommended extension
was in the sunset audit.
Mr. Sexton replied that he did not recall specifically. He
believed the recommendation was a four or six-year
extension. He noted there was a representative from the
University present who could likely answer the question.
Representative Hannan asked about the Senate companion and
the Legislative Audit recommendation. She wondered if the
recommendation was to remove a sunset or perpetuate one at
some length of time.
Co-Chair Edgmon replied that it was fair to say that the
audit did not recommend continuing in perpetuity. He shared
that an audit recommendation for continuing something in
perpetuity was the exception rather than the rule. He
shared Representative Ruffridge's line of thinking in terms
of extending the bill. He considered the time, effort, and
costs involved. He stated there was an ability to audit the
programs and make subsequent changes without having to go
through the whole reauthorization of a program, which
became a rote exercise.
9:42:46 AM
Representative Hannan was not interested in holding up the
bill. She continued to have an interest making sure the
legislature revisited bills going forward; therefore,
completely suspending the sunset had her a little
concerned. However, she was very supportive of the
underlying premise of the bill. She was satisfied with
having raised the questions.
Co-Chair Edgmon thanked the bill sponsor. He asked the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) to review the fiscal notes.
9:43:58 AM
AT EASE
9:45:37 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Edgmon noted that in the absence of DCCED, Brodie
Anderson would review the fiscal note.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the DCCED fiscal note OMB component number 354.
The fiscal note showed no significant changes on the first
page. He explained that the Division of Insurance submitted
the fiscal note because the insurance premium tax was a
collectable tax paid by insurance companies. He elaborated
that the education tax credits would be eligible to be used
against any sort of liability a company incurred in its
insurance premium tax. He noted that the Division of
Insurance had seen a sharp decline in credits being
claimed. The last paragraph of the analysis [on page 2 of
the fiscal note] included a breakdown about the amount
claimed against education tax credits.
Co-Chair Johnson asked if the fiscal note was zero because
DCCED did not administer a grant as the payments went
directly to institutions.
Mr. Anderson responded that tax credits were managed by DOR
under the Tax Division and DOR would provide a review of
its fiscal note. He explained that fiscal notes did not
always reflect lost revenue, but there could potentially be
lost revenue from the tax credit amount being claimed
against the liability of the insurance premium tax. He
relayed that DCCED anticipated no loss in revenue due to
the repeal.
9:49:05 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if the bill sponsor or staff wanted
to elaborate.
Mr. Sexton replied that it was a tax credit program and
there were not any payments going out to entities. He
explained that the donations were going to educational
institutions and as such, the donation was able to receive
a tax credit through the program. The result was a
reduction in revenue to the state. For example, in FY 23
total contributions were just over $5.4 million and the
credits claimed (under the current 50 percent threshold)
were about $2.7 million, resulting in loss of revenue to
the state in that amount.
Representative Galvin appreciated that the bill was simple
and only pertained to the sunset cap. She remarked that the
Senate version had a different sunset date. Additionally,
the House had passed HB 89 pertaining to childcare. She
elaborated that HB 89 also changed the dollar cap that an
entity could put into educational and childcare
organizations. She noted that if the Senate passed HB 89,
the cap would change. She highlighted that if that
occurred, the fiscal notes for HB 144 would be different.
She clarified she was not suggesting not passing HB 144.
She was merely highlighting it could potentially
significantly change the fiscal note. She stated that the
current bill would not result in changes to the fiscal note
because it did not make any other changes to the cap on
what an entity could use to defer their own tax bill, which
would be direct revenue to DOR.
Mr. Anderson believed Mr. Williams with DOR was available
online to review the second fiscal note.
9:53:22 AM
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (via teleconference), reviewed the
DOR fiscal note, OMB component number 2476. He explained
that the education credit was a credit for qualifying
contributions to Alaska universities and accredited
nonprofit Alaska two-year or four-year colleges for
facilities, direct instruction, research, and educational
support purposes direct instruction, research and
educational support purposes; donations to a school
district or a state-operated technical and training school
for vocational education courses, programs and facilities;
and donations for Alaska Native cultural or heritage
programs for public school staff and students, and a
facility in the state that qualifies as a coastal ecosystem
learning center under the Coastal American Partnership. He
relayed that the credit was available to be claimed against
insurance premiums, tax, title insurance premiums, tax,
corporate income tax, oil and gas production tax, oil and
gas property tax, mining license tax, fisheries business
tax, and fishery resource landing tax. The credit for any
one taxpayer could not exceed $1 million annually across
all tax types. The credit was currently scheduled to sunset
on January 1, 2025. The bill would repeal the sunset
provision.
Mr. Williams continued to review the DOR fiscal note. The
change in revenues reported in the fiscal note only
included eligible tax programs administered by DOR. The
bill's fiscal impact was from eliminating the current
repeal provisions beyond 2025. He noted that January 1,
2025, was halfway into FY 25; therefore, it was an
estimated $1.5 million fiscal impact. Based on historical
credit claims, the outyears showed $3.1 million annually in
foregone revenue for contributions claimed for the
education tax credit. There was no implementation or
administrative cost for DOR other than absorbing it under
current operating expenses. There was no grant process; the
contributions went directly from a private corporation to
the eligible programs listed in statute.
Co-Chair Edgmon referenced that the bill sponsor had
indicated that the bulk of the receipts went to the
University [of Alaska]. He asked Mr. Williams to provide
further detail on the subject.
Mr. Williams answered that the calendar year 2023 education
credits were $5.4 million and of that $3.4 million went to
the University of Alaska system, just under $1 million went
to Alaska Pacific University, about $750,000 went to K-12
schools, school districts, vocational technical
institutions, and roughly $300,000 went to other eligible
organizations like the Alaska Native Heritage Program. The
$5.4 million in contributions translated to $2.7 million in
tax credits.
9:57:17 AM
Representative Josephson provided an example of seeing
large contributions from Conoco to the Alaska Performing
Arts Center in Anchorage. He asked if those contributions
were associated with a different type of tax credit.
Mr. Williams replied that he was not aware that the
donation in Representative Josephson's example was eligible
for a credit. He explained that it was not on the list of
eligible contributions under current statute.
Co-Chair Johnson observed that a contribution could be for
equipment or housing [in addition to other things]. She
asked if an entity had to take the contributions. She
wondered who evaluated the donations. She used the donation
of a white elephant piece of property as an example.
Mr. Williams responded that contributions of equipment had
to meet the same standard as a charitable contribution
under the internal revenue code. He relayed that
contributions of equipment or land over a certain dollar
amount required an official appraisal to substantiate the
value of the contribution.
Co-Chair Johnson asked who did the appraisal.
Mr. Williams answered that there was certain documentation
the donor was required to maintain. He detailed that if,
during its audit, DOR looked at a piece of equipment or
land contributed, DOR would request the valuation to
substantiate the value of the donation.
9:59:28 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon thanked the presenters.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT HB 144 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, HB 144 was REPORTED out of
committee with four "do pass" recommendations, three "no
recommendation" recommendations, and two "amend"
recommendations and with one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Revenue and one new zero note from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act relating to contributions from permanent fund
dividends to the general and permanent funds."
10:00:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PRAX, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the bill. He provided an introduction of the
bill with prepared remarks:
House Bill 45 would add a button to the electronic PFD
application process to give Alaskans the choice of
donating all or a portion of their Permanent Fund
Dividend directly to the state's general fund.
Participants can donate in increments of 10 percent up
to the full amount of the PFD. Currently, in order to
return your PFD to the state, Alaskans must apply for
the dividend, receive their dividend, and return it
through the U.S. mail. Passage of this bill will
greatly facilitate Alaskan's ability to donate their
PFD to the state's general fund.
Representative Prax relayed that a previous version of the
nd
bill was introduced in the 32 Legislature as HB 158 and
was amended in the House and had 22 cosponsors. The bill
was reintroduced during the current legislature in the form
previously passed by the House Finance Committee. He
explained that the House Ways and Means Committee amended
HB 45 by making some minor changes that would make the
implementation of the bill go more smoothly. He stated
there were numerous reasons why a person may choose to give
some or all of their PFD back to the state and Alaskans
deserved to have the option for doing so in a simple and
efficient manner. He stated that the bill would provide
that option.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if the sponsor's staff had any
comments.
RILEY NYE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PRAX, reviewed the
sectional explanation of changes (copy on file):
Section 1
This was added in version B and is a new section that
amends AS 43.23.55 for the purpose of establishing the
following priority order for contributions under:
1. AS 43.23.130 (Education Raffle)
2. AS 43.23.230 (Pick Click Give)
3. AS 43.23.135 (AK General Fund Donation)
Section 2
This was section 1 in version A of this bill and it
was renumbered to be section 2 of this committee
substitute version B.
The following words were Deleted in this transition
from version A to B--- "A contribution to the state
general fund or the principal of the permanent fund
may be $25 or more, in increments of $25, up to the
total amount of the permanent fund dividend that the
applicant is entitled to receive."
On Page 3, lines 18-20 Insert---"A contribution to the
state general fund or the principal of the permanent
fund may be 10 percent of the amount of the dividend
or more, in increments of 10 percent, up to the total
amount of the permanent fund dividend that the
applicant is entitled to receive."
Also in this section, the following words were
deleted, "The electronic application must include
notice that seven percent of the money contributed to
the state general fund or the principal of the
permanent fund will be used for administrative costs
incurred in implementing this subsection and that
money from the dividend fund will not be used for that
purpose."
On Page 3, lines 26-28 the following words were
inserted, "Money from a contribution under this
subsection or from the dividend fund may not be used
for administrative costs incurred in implementing this
subsection."
10:05:07 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon thanked Representative Prax for the
presentation.
Representative Prax asked members to provide questions or
suggested amendments to him ahead of time in order to
expedite the hearing process.
HB 45 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Edgmon reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:05:53 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 45 Sponsor Statement Version B.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Sectional Analysis Version B.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Explanation of Changes Version A to B.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB045 Additional Document--Pick.Click.Give chart 5.16.23.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB045 Public Testimony Rec'd by 5.16.23.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 45 |
| HB 116.FiscalNote. HFIN.DOC.4.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116.FiscalNote. HFIN.DPS.VS.CDVSA.4.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 116 |