HOUSE BILL NO. 273 "An Act extending the termination date of the Marijuana Control Board; and providing for an effective date." 2:39:44 PM Co-Chair Foster noted the bill had last been heard on February 6, 2018 and had closed public testimony on the same date. CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, provided a brief description of the legislation. The bill would extend the board six years. She believed the members' bill files contained a letter from Erika McConnell, Executive Director, Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office (AMCO) with answers to committee members questions from the prior meeting. Representative Wilson had been disappointed the committee had not heard from the Alcohol Beverage Control Board (ABC). She asked to delay the bill to allow for a discussion with both boards to understand how they worked under AMCO. She stated the information had been confusing. Co-Chair Foster asked if there were any other comments from committee members on the issue. Representative Kawasaki agreed there were lingering questions. He recounted that AMCO had been created to create efficiencies. He thought that there were some issues that needed to be examined further. 2:42:32 PM Ms. Koeneman did not believe there would be an objection from the sponsor. She understood that the ABC board extension bill was set to report out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee shortly. Representative Kawasaki requested the following information be addressed the next time the bill was heard. He asked about the startup general fund (GF) money for the marijuana board and how the funds would be recovered through fees. He requested further analysis on the marijuana board's application process. Finally, he wondered how AMCO split enforcement between both boards and who made the staffing decisions regarding enforcement duties. 2:45:09 PM Representative Wilson asked to hear from the department on whether it was able to recoup the costs from all the boards in general. Vice-Chair Gara wanted to know why it would be another two years before fees would cover the costs of operating the marijuana board. Representative Wilson asked why audits were covered by the legislature. She thought boards would be more serious about addressing the recommendations if they covered the audit's cost. She noted that the cost of one particular audit was $40,000. She wanted to know why the legislature did not charge the audit costs back to the boards. 2:48:01 PM Ms. Curtis answered that she had put some thought into a memorandum she had sent regarding the cost of a particular audit. She further explained that main purpose of the audit staff was to complete the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the single audit each year. When the division was not doing the specific CAFR work auditors turned to other statutorily required audits and the audit requests approved by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LBA). She maintained that there were no additional costs to the agency for other audits; the division still needed the same number of auditors to perform the single and CAFR audits. She added that the sunset audits were done with excess resources during slower months. She characterized it as an opportunity costs because there were other special audits that also could be done outside the sunset process like performance or LBA audits. Representative Wilson clarified that she was not looking to cut the division's budget. She was merely trying to determine why the audits had been paid for by the legislature. HB 273 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following day.