Legislature(2015 - 2016)BILL RAY CENTER 208
05/26/2016 11:00 AM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| HB4002 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB4002 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 26, 2016
11:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Shelley Hughes, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Sam Kito
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Louise Stutes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 4002
"An Act relating to major medical insurance coverage under the
Public Employees' Retirement System of Alaska for certain
surviving spouses and dependent children of peace officers and
firefighters; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB4002
SHORT TITLE: INS. FOR DEPENDS. OF DECEASED FIRE/POLICE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
05/23/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/23/16 (H) L&C, FIN
05/26/16 (H) L&C AT 11:00 AM BILL RAY CENTER 208
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN BOUCHER, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"Department Overview," dated 5/26/16, and introduced HB 4002.
MICHELE MICHAUD, Chief Health Official
Division of Retirement and Benefits
Central Office
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
4002.
ACTION NARRATIVE
11:05:49 AM
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 11:05 a.m. Representatives Olsen,
Colver, Tilton, Kito, Josephson, Hughes (via teleconference),
and LeDoux, were present at the call to order. Also present
were Representatives Millet, Seaton, and Stutes.
HB4002-INS. FOR DEPENDS. OF DECEASED FIRE/POLICE
11:06:14 AM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 4002 "An Act relating to major medical insurance
coverage under the Public Employees' Retirement System of Alaska
for certain surviving spouses and dependent children of peace
officers and firefighters; and providing for an effective date."
11:07:19 AM
JOHN BOUCHER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Administration (DOA), provided a brief background
on HB 4002, noting that the bill addresses the deaths of
individuals who have served the State of Alaska in protective
services capacities. As a result of recent deaths, a gap in
benefits was identified, and the administration is introducing
HB 4002 with the goal of providing premium-free medical coverage
to families of peace officers and firefighters who are killed in
the line of duty. Mr. Boucher said the first issue addressed by
the bill is that surviving spouses and dependent children are
not eligible for premium-free medical coverage until survivors
become eligible for those benefits at retirement age, thus there
is a gap in coverage.
CHAIR OLSON recognized Representative Millet as having
introduced the original bill in this regard.
11:09:24 AM
MR. BOUCHER stated HB 4002 allows surviving spouses and
dependent children to obtain premium-free medical care upon the
instance of an occupational death of a peace officer or
firefighter. The state has multiple tiers in its retirement
system, and portions of the bill relate primarily to Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Tier II, Tier III, peace
officers and firefighters, and portions relate to PERS Tier IV,
known as the Defined Contribution Retirement (DCR) plan. The
second issue is that under the DCR plan, survivors cannot access
health care until the deceased member would have reached 25
years of service, and must also pay 100 percent of the premium;
however, HB 4002 allows the premium to be paid by the state on
behalf of the surviving spouse or dependents of peace officers
and firefighters, upon the instance of an occupational death.
Mr. Boucher pointed out that Tier IV plan is a premium share
plan, therefore, the member contributes a certain portion of the
total premium, dependent upon the number of years of contributed
service. Upon the instance of an occupational death of a peace
officer or firefighter, survivors' benefits are received
premium-free until Medicare tales effect, and then contributions
begin based upon years of service [slide 2].
MR. BOUCHER said that the third issue addressed by the bill is
that the Tier IV plan requires a member to retire directly from
the plan, thus a member would have to work in the twelve months
prior to retirement. For example, if a defined contribution
retirement plan member worked five or ten years, and then was
killed in the line of duty, and their dependent(s) continued to
receive an occupational death benefit, they could not retire
directly from the plan. He explained the bill made a technical
fix that had to occur for certain members, because it was
impossible for them to retire directly from the plan. Mr.
Boucher continued to issue four, which affects all tiers, and
explained that health benefits are not available to dependent
children of PERS plan members if the member died and there was
no surviving spouse. The bill would allow access to medical
benefits to which dependents are entitled, in cases where there
is no surviving spouse, such as a single parent family [slide
3]. He directed attention to slide 4, which addressed the issue
of the individual occupations that would be covered by HB 4002,
and advised that statutorily-defined peace officers and
firefighters include the following: police, chief of police,
regional public safety officer, correctional officer,
correctional superintendent, firefighter, and fire chief. The
occupations are a subset of PERS referred to as peace/fire, and
which incorporates about 1,900 members who are state employees,
and roughly 1,700 members spread across 43 political
subdivisions.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked whether municipal and other non-
state law enforcement officers and firefighters are required to
be members of the PERS system, or if membership is optional.
MR. BOUCHER said he is aware there are volunteer and contract
firefighters who do not have a relationship with PERS.
11:16:01 AM
MICHELE MICHAUD, Chief Health Official, Division of Retirement
and Benefits (DRB), DOA, said that different municipalities and
political subdivisions elect to participate in PERS, and part of
their election allows them to exclude certain classes of
employees; therefore, any municipality or political subdivision
could choose to exclude peace officers and firefighters from
participation in PERS.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER relayed that some volunteer firefighter
programs have had issues with their employees' eligibility for
PERS due to their limited hours of work. He asked for
clarification on whether the intent of the proposed legislation
as drafted, covers volunteer firefighters, emergency medical
service (EMS) workers, and municipal firefighters.
MR. BOUCHER agreed to provide this information.
CHAIR OLSON recalled proposed legislation in 2015 which was
related to three service areas in the Interior that have a
contract with a private firm, and have opted out of PERS, the
Teachers' Retirement System (TERS), and "everything else." He
agreed that there are other entities in the state that are
privately contracting insurance and benefit packages.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER noted that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
(Mat-Su Borough) tried to limit the amount of time firefighters
and EMS volunteers worked so that they would not qualify for
PERS. After litigation, there is now a consent agreement. Some
workers are fulltime and some are limited to 20 hours per week;
he said the proposed legislation needs to identify who will be
covered of those working in municipal volunteer fire
departments. Representative Colver continued, "... Mat-Su has
huge fire departments and it's generally, most of the staff are,
are part-time because of the PERS issue." He then questioned
whether EMS, such as ambulance drivers, are covered under the
statutory definition. In Anchorage, the professional department
cross-trains workers to serve as both firefighters and EMS crew,
and he stressed for clarification on their status related to the
proposed legislation.
MR. BOUCHER explained the intent of HB 4002 is to limit its
effect to employees who have an existing relationship with the
PERS system; if there is no preexisting relationship with PERS,
there is no coverage. He said, "The intent is, to, you have to
have that existing relationship with PERS, which, based on the
comments from Ms. Michaud, would essentially be determined by
the participation agreement between the state and the political
subdivision."
11:20:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether - under the current system -
coverage would exist for someone who was not killed in the line
of duty, but was disabled to the extent that they could no
longer work.
MR. BOUCHER answered that PERS has an occupational death and
disability benefit, thus the injured worker could receive a
disability benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that he introduced a bill during
this and a previous legislative session, on behalf of an officer
in the Anchorage Police Department (APD) who pointed out that if
an APD officer were to be grievously injured on the job, no
retirement benefits would be received during his convalescence.
In fact, retirement benefits would be "frozen" while
convalescing in a hospital or at home, and the officer would be
covered only by workers' compensation. Representative Josephson
said the bill he introduced would correct the present policy,
and he asked Mr. Boucher whether it would "cover this, this gap
where there'd be no retirement coverage."
MR. BOUCHER said he did not know about workers' compensation
coverage and would research this question.
CHAIR OLSON asked how many bargaining units the state has that
cover "these people."
MR. BOUCHER said two are the correctional officers and the
Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA), and he would provide
others.
CHAIR OLSON asked whether the aforementioned bargaining units
have optional coverages in their "packages" from which employees
can choose.
MR. BOUCHER offered his understanding that PSEA has some
options. In further response to Chair Olson, he said options
include accidental death, disability, and assisted care. He
said that the state has a suite of voluntary insurance benefits,
including life insurance for all AlaskaCare members and those
who have access to the Alaska Supplemental Annuity Plan (SBS-
AP).
CHAIR OLSON requested that Mr. Boucher provide the committee
copies of both the current and previous contracts by the next
meeting.
MR. BOUCHER agreed.
11:24:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX returned to her previous question and
asked whether under the current system, health insurance
benefits would be terminated for a worker - and his/her
dependents - who was grievously injured on the job and was not
able to return to work.
MS. MICHAUD offered her understanding that if appointed to a
disability benefit under the PERS system, members and their
eligible dependents are entitled to health insurance, at least
under the Tier II and Tier III plans, and she would inform the
committee on entitlement under Tier IV.
MR. BOUCHER returned attention to slide 5, which provided a
brief history of the proposed legislation. Former Governor Sean
Parnell worked with legislators on proposed HB 66 and proposed
SB 202, which covered all PERS and TRS employees, removed the
requirement in the DCR plan to retire directly from the plan,
and those provisions, when combined with a high amount of
offered coverage, resulted in a significant fiscal note. Due to
the fiscal climate at this time, the present administration
sought to narrow the focus of HB 66, and he described two
attempted revisions that did not advance. On the governor's
call for [the Fourth Special Session of the 29th Alaska State
Legislature] is HB 4002, which was modeled on HB 66, Version S
[slide 6].
11:28:28 AM
CHAIR OLSON added that the legislature first heard the bill
about a year and a half ago, without a fiscal note or an
actuarial review. The committee held no additional meetings
because members did not receive the actuarial report until about
three weeks ago, and received the $60 million fiscal note on
[May 25, 2016]. He said a second actuarial report was
distributed [May 25, 2016], and opined that the bill is "more
manageable this time around."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for an explanation of the fiscal
note. She understood that 27 people have died in the line of
duty over the last decade from "all departments," and questioned
how coverage for 27 individuals could result in a $60 million
fiscal note.
CHAIR OLSON suggested that the fiscal note was in error, and may
have offered coverage to all state employees.
MR. BOUCHER affirmed that the previously proposed legislation
covered all PERS and TRS members, and held the provision that
individuals in the DCR plan were not required to retire directly
from the plan, thus additional issues - as well as a larger
scope - contributed to the size of the fiscal note.
CHAIR OLSON clarified that the fiscal note currently discussed
was "on the original version of the first bill."
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER pointed out that fiscal note [Identifier:
HB4002-DOA-PERS-05-24-16] forecasts in fiscal year 2017 (FY 17)
costs of $174,000, and in [FY 22], costs of $226,000.
11:32:13 AM
MR. BOUCHER directed attention to slide 7, which illustrated FY
17 projected costs of $174,000, rising to $226,000 over a five-
year period. He said costs could be expected to incrementally
grow over time, depending on the cost of providing health care
to affected employees. He continued to slide 9, which explained
why the administration chose the approach taken by HB 4002.
Although the bill could expand to include others who perform
similar work, the issue is related to whether an individual has
an existing relationship with the PERS system; for example, if
there is no existing relationship, the legislation could violate
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), U.S. Department of the Treasury,
laws, by providing a benefit from a trust fund to non-
participants of said trust fund. He cautioned that a violation
of IRS laws means the plan could lose its exempt status, which
would be very expensive for both employees and the state.
MR. BOUCHER further explained the potential problem of limiting
the scope of the bill to a group such as the Alaska State
Troopers. In this case, DRB would have to re-define the "peace
officer/firefighter group" within the PERS retirement system who
have, since inception, been offered a specific suite of
benefits. However, from a legal perspective, DRB believes it is
better to offer the benefit to the entire group, rather than
offer an enhanced benefit to a subset group. He warned against
creating a system of essentially customized benefits - by groups
or employers - because the system may become unmanageable [slide
10]. Mr. Boucher stated that HB 4002 is a compromise which
applies the benefit to an existing, statutorily-defined group of
peace officers and firefighters that is consistent with the
legal distinction of the group from other state employees. In
addition, the fiscal impact of HB 4002 is much smaller than if
the benefit were offered to a larger population [slide 11].
11:38:11 AM
CHAIR OLSON provided some background information on the original
proposed legislation beginning about four years ago. He noted
that of the 27 on-duty fatalities over the last decade, almost
one-half were aircraft and other accidental fatalities, across a
number of departments and divisions. Chair Olson cautioned that
other entities would eventually want similar coverage. In
response to Representative Colver, he stated he had indicated to
the administration that to get the bill out of committee, which
"is doable," the committee will next hear from the actuary, the
state risk manager, and DRB.
MS. MICHAUD provided a sectional analysis for HB 4002, advising
that proposed Section 1 addresses the health reimbursement
arrangement account that is used to pay for part of the premium,
or other qualified medical expenses for DCR plan members, by
amending AS 39.30.400(b) to allow for eligible members'
dependent child(ren) to also have access to those funds.
Proposed Section 2 removes the gap for Tier II and Tier III
members in the defined benefits portion. Currently, if a peace
officer or firefighter were to work 20 years, they were
considered for normal retirement, but 25 years of service was
required to get medical benefits, thus if a member suffers an
occupational death, there would be a gap where there would be no
coverage provided. This provision closes the first gap, and
also allows for dependents to be covered when there is no
surviving spouse, "which was a gap that we have in all of our
Tiers." Section 3 allows for benefits to be provided to a
surviving spouse premium-free. Currently, the eligible member's
spouse had access to medical benefits through the defined
benefit plan, but would be responsible for paying 100 percent of
the premium.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that under
the current law, if a non-public safety officer, such as a Clerk
I, were a single parent and died, then there would be no
coverage for dependents.
MS. MICHAUD answered that was correct. If there were no
surviving spouse, and a non-peace/fire member passed away due to
occupational reasons, there would not be access to a medical
plan for the dependent child(ren). In further response to
Representative Josephson, she said if there were a surviving
spouse, the surviving spouse would be able to cover the
dependent(s). In further response to Representative Josephson,
she affirmed that the surviving spouse would have to pay for
coverage until either the survivor reached age 60, or the member
would have reached normal retirement, which in the "all other"
category, is granted at 30 years of service, at which time the
survivor would be eligible for premium-free medical benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised that under the current
structure, even though one has to pay a premium, it is
advantageous to be a married person who is a widow or widower,
and the state shows prejudice to single parents under the
existing law.
MS. MICHAUD agreed there is a disadvantage for a child(ren) when
there is no surviving spouse.
11:46:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO inquired as to whether - either under the
existing or the proposed plan - a surviving spouse could
continue to receive benefits from the state if they got a job,
and were eligible to receive their own benefits.
MS. MICHAUD stated that if a survivor is appointed a benefit, if
not eligible for premium-free coverage, they could elect to pay
for that coverage; furthermore, survivors may drop the coverage
when employed, and once the survivor reached age 60, and became
eligible for premium-free coverage, they would be given the
opportunity to re-enroll in the plan. However, if the survivor
had active coverage through an employer, the coordination and
benefit rules apply, thus the employee plan would become
primary, and the retirement plan would become the secondary
coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO gave an example of a survivor working in a
state position where they were eligible for a benefit, and asked
whether they could elect to pay the work-related benefit, or if
they would be allowed to receive the survivor benefits.
MS. MICHAUD responded that in the AlaskaCare plan, state
employees are required to participate - at least in some level
of medical coverage - if they were in a medical benefit eligible
position, although they could elect a premium-free coverage.
11:48:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER directed attention to the bill on page
[3], line 25 which read:
(E) is receiving a benefit under (a)(3) of this
section.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER remarked:
This simply gives them the option to just ... pay like
a [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reform Act] up to the
point that, where they would receive statutory
benefits as a survivor of the employee, like you said
at 60, depending on the number of years of service in
the plan, as an option to Section 11, which is that
the state will cover the premium at no cost to the
surviving spouse and dependent children.
MS. MICHAUD asked Representative Colver to repeat the question.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER surmised there are two options: the
surviving spouse has an option to elect to pay the premium to
keep the insurance in force, or Section 11 provides that the
premium would be covered by the state retirement system.
MS. MICHAUD answered that on page 1 there is a change to AS
39.30.400(b), which is the health reimbursement arrangement
account as related to the DCR plan. Section 11 allows for
dependent children to receive premium-free medical benefits if
there was no surviving spouse, or until the surviving spouse
reaches Medicare age, at which point the "premium subsidy piece
of these statutes" becomes effective, depending on years of
service. For example, 25 years of service would obligate the
member to pay 15 percent of the premium. Further, the health
reimbursement arrangement account could be used to pay the 15
percent, thus there is the option, once the survivor "converts
to the premium subsidy, other than 100 percent, to use that to,
to pay those premiums."
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER suggested a flow chart would better
explain what Medicare will not pay.
MS. MICHAUD gave an example of a premium for a DCR plan that
cost $1,000, and if the survivor had to pay 15 percent, or $150
per month, the health reimbursement arrangement account could be
used to make those payments.
11:52:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX concluded that under the current system,
if there is no surviving spouse, kids are left without coverage.
MS. MICHAUD responded that currently, the statutes do not
provide access to a medical plan for dependents if there is no
surviving spouse.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that the lack of coverage is
being fixed for the surviving children of peace officers, and
asked, "Are we fixing this for everybody else, too?
MS. MICHAUD responded no. Under the current version of HB 4002,
the provision is limited to peace officers and firefighters
killed in the line of duty.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the issue could be fixed, in
order to provide the additional benefit to others that is going
to be provided for peace officers.
MS. MICHAUD advised an amendment would require running another
actuarial analysis to determine whether there would be
additional cost associated with that change.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested that DRB run another actuarial
analysis with that change, and opined that children would be in
a worse situation, if left without either parent, than if they
were left with one parent.
MS. MICHAUD said yes.
CHAIR OLSON said further testimony on legal matters is
forthcoming.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO suggested that the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) could advise whether children left
without a parent would became wards of the state, and thereby
eligible for coverage from Denali KidCare, Alaska's Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Division of Health Care
Services, DHSS.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that the state has a policy to
encourage people to enter careers in public safety - because
they are needed - and HB 4002 costs less that its earlier
iteration. However, he characterized a policy that says single
parents' children would not get something that married parents'
children would get as invidious, arbitrary, and capricious.
This is not discrimination based on race, creed, or color, and
he questioned its rational basis.
CHAIR OLSON asked Ms. Michaud whether significant others are
treated any differently than spouses.
MS. MICHAUD acknowledged that in response to a recent court
ruling, a provision was changed which "grandfathered in" a small
subset of qualified same-sex partner retirees.
CHAIR OLSON requested a copy of the change.
11:56:45 AM
MS. MICHAUD returned attention to the sectional analysis,
briefly describing each section as follows:
· Section 4 expands coverage to include spouses and
dependents of peace officers and firefighters under the DCR
plan. Previously, the statute limited coverage to a
surviving spouse of a member who already retired, or was
eligible to retire at the time of death; HB 4002 allows
coverage for the spouse and dependents to begin immediately
upon the death of fallen peace officers and firefighters.
· Section 5 is conforming language to expand who is eligible
to apply for benefits from "members" to "a person."
· Section 6 clarifies language related to participation in
the medical plan.
· Section 7 is a new benefit; for example, if a DCR plan
retiree died after five years of service, their service
continues to accrue while their survivor receives an
occupational death benefit. Therefore, the survivor and
dependent child(ren) would not have any access to health
care until the years of service reach twenty-five, at which
time the survivor would pay 100 percent of the premium.
Section 7 allows for an end date for child(ren) to stop
receiving coverage if they aged-out during that waiting
period.
· Section 8 expands a definition to allow for coverage to a
surviving spouse or dependent children.
· Section 9 also expands the end date so that there would be
no conflict if child(ren) age-out in the interim period of
time and coverage was not continued.
· Section 10 is also conforming language.
· Section 11 provides for the survivor or the eligible
dependent child(ren) to have coverage premium-free until
the survivor would have reached Medicare age, and at that
time coverage converts back to a normal premium subsidy.
· Section 12 removes a redundant reference to the
occupational death benefit.
· Section 13 repeals AS 39.365.880(c) which was reenacted
under AS 39.365.880(b).
· Section 14 adds a new section that allows for the adoption
of regulations.
· Section 15 provides for benefits to be retroactive to
January 1, 2013.
· Section 16 allows Section 14 to become effective
immediately after enacted.
· Section 17 provides regulations to be effective January 1,
2017.
12:02:11 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked for the purpose of the January 1, 2013,
[retroactivity] date.
MR. BOUCHER replied that that date was set to make certain the
state covered the aforementioned fatalities. In further
response to Chair Olson, he said [2013] was the year of the
first fatality.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON posed an example of a vehicle crash
November 24, 2012, leaving one dependent spouse and no children,
and asked whether that spouse would be eligible for health care.
MR. BOUCHER answered that if an incident occurred prior to
January 1, 2013, no; he pointed out that the two qualifiers are:
peace/fire [member] and occurrence after January 1, 2013.
[HB 4002 was held over.]
12:05:14 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
12:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB4002 ver A.pdf |
HL&C 5/26/2016 11:00:00 AM |
HB4002 |
| HB4002 Fiscal Note DOA-OOC-05-22-16.pdf |
HL&C 5/26/2016 11:00:00 AM |
HB4002 |
| HB4002 Supporting Documents-Definitions of Public Safety Officer.pdf |
HL&C 5/26/2016 11:00:00 AM |
HB4002 |
| HB4002 Fiscal Note-DOA-PERS-05-24-16.pdf |
HL&C 5/26/2016 11:00:00 AM |
HB4002 |
| HB4002 Supporting Documents-Actuarial letter 5.24.16.pdf |
HL&C 5/26/2016 11:00:00 AM |
HB4002 |
| HB4002 Supporting Documents-DOA_Presentation to HL&C 05-26-16.pdf |
HL&C 5/26/2016 11:00:00 AM |
HB4002 |
| HB4002 Supporting Documents-DOA_Risk Management_work related deaths 05-25-16.pdf |
HL&C 5/26/2016 11:00:00 AM |
HB4002 |
| HB4002 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 5/26/2016 11:00:00 AM |
HB4002 |
| HB4002 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 5/26/2016 11:00:00 AM |
HB4002 |