Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/10/2015 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 | |
| HB123 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB15 | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment and to good time deductions."
1:53:57 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 15, Work Draft 29-LS0102\S (Martin,
4/8/15). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Wilson explained the changes in the CS. She
detailed that the word "substantial" had been deleted from
the following sentence on page 1, line 12: "...under
electronic monitoring and the court imposes substantial
restrictions on the person's freedom of movement..."
Additionally, on page 2, Section 3, the CS required a
defendant to request to claim credit [toward a sentence of
imprisonment for time spent in a treatment program] 10 days
prior to a disposition hearing.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that staff from various departments
were available to answer questions.
Representative Guttenberg believed electronic monitoring
was only available in Fairbanks, Juneau, Anchorage, and
possibly on the Kenai Peninsula. He stated that individuals
in communities without electronic monitoring were not
eligible for the program. He spoke to concerns about equal
justice throughout the state.
Representative Wilson replied that the Department of
Corrections (DOC) had the ability to offer electronic
monitoring into other areas; however, the private sector
was not present in the areas. She deferred to DOC for
further detail.
REMOND HENDERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, confirmed that Representative Wilson was
correct; the department did have electronic monitoring
available in other communities (outside of metropolitan
areas). He elaborated that department staff was available
to provide a list of the communities if desired.
Additionally, the department was looking at expanding
electronic monitoring in other areas in order to free-up
prison beds.
Representative Guttenberg surmised that electronic
monitoring was not currently available in some communities
and may or may not be available in the future. He stated
that individuals currently using the electronic monitoring
service were paying a significant portion of the fee. He
wondered what the cost of the service would be for
individuals in smaller communities such as Tanana.
Mr. Henderson answered that the bill dealt with electronic
monitoring on pre-trial cases (the individuals did not fall
under the department's jurisdiction). There was a zero
fiscal note, because there was no cost to the department.
He reiterated that staff was available to list current
communities with electronic monitoring capability.
1:59:23 PM
Representative Guttenberg was interested in pre-trial
information related to the legislation. He asked the
department to follow up with the information.
Representative Gara was satisfied with that the CS met
intent the committee had discussed at a prior meeting. He
asked about the cost of electronic monitoring. Mr.
Henderson answered that there was alcoholic monitoring and
GPS monitoring; the alcoholic monitor was slightly more
expensive. He believed less expensive monitoring was $14
per day plus a weekly $10 urinalysis fee ($108 per week).
Representative Gara stated that there was an equal access
to justice issue. He wondered why a condition could not be
made to serve all of the state's court houses to provide
rural residents with access.
Mr. Henderson deferred the question to the Alaska Court
System.
2:01:59 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, asked
Representative Gara to repeat his question. Representative
Gara reiterated his question.
Ms. Meade shared that pre-trial electronic monitoring
currently existed in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, and
Kenai. The state did not have contracts with electronic
monitoring vendors. She detailed that the defendant, who
has a third-party custodian as a bail condition, could
decide to hire the vendor to act as the third-party
custodian. She explained that the vendor was paid for by
the defendant; the defendant brought the vendor to the
judge for approval as the third-party custodian. She
believed the cost could be in the neighborhood of $300 to
$500 depending on how much monitoring a person contracted
with a vendor.
Representative Gara stated that judges were approving the
usage under their standards for safety and monitoring. He
wondered why the court system could not specify that the
monitoring had to be provided in a multitude of other
communities if it was provided in several.
Ms. Meade replied that it had never been considered by the
court in the past. She stated that there was no
relationship between the court and the vendor. The court's
only role was to approve or disapprove of the vendor as the
third-party custodian. She noted that the courts had not
declined third-party vendors as custodians for having an
office in one location but not another.
Representative Gara believed the court system did good
work; however, he hoped the court would consider the issue
because it was unequal access to justice issue. He stated
that the court had done a substantial amount on unequal
justice over the years. He asked for verification that
electronic monitoring was limited to people in third-party
custody. He discussed that the electronic monitoring was
going to individuals who would otherwise get a third-party
custodian. He detailed that a third-party custodian had to
be with the individual 24-hours per day; the custodian
could go to jail if they did not trail the individual
constantly during the required time period.
Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative. She added that people
who were released on their own recognizance with no bail
conditions would not need to hire a third-party custodian
and were not covered under the legislation.
Representative Gara discussed that third-party custody was
provided as an option to individuals who were not the most
reliable in the eyes of the court in order to free up jail
space.
2:06:40 PM
Representative Gattis wondered if the bill was necessary to
free up jail beds and expand monitoring statewide. Mr.
Henderson answered that currently the department was not
granting time for electronic monitoring in pretrial;
however, he believed the department had the ability. He
stated that the bill was not essential for the department
to exercise the ability for individuals in its custody.
However, the bill was aimed at applying to individuals who
were not yet in custody.
Representative Wilson stated that the bill represented an
incentive and another tool in the court system's toolbox.
She hoped the bill would incentivize people to get the
needed treatment during the pretrial period versus while
sitting in jail. She explained that it was also an
incentive to get the time [served] credit. She anticipated
that vendors would begin to operate in smaller communities
if they saw that the service was needed. She had worked
closely with DOC, which was doing significant work to
ensure people were getting the help they needed.
Co-Chair Thompson asked how long a person was typically in
pretrial status. Mr. Henderson replied that the number
varied greatly; it could be several days to several months.
Representative Guttenberg wondered if the bill presented an
equal access to justice issue. For example, a person in
Bethel wanting access to the service in their own
community. He wondered if there was a constitutional
question. Ms. Meade saw his point, but hesitated to say
whether it was a constitutional issue. She stated that
currently people did have the option available in
communities with vendors. The incentive to use the service
was that a person could be out of jail with an ankle
bracelet instead of in jail pretrial. She stated that the
fact that no vendor had found it economical to go to some
smaller communities had not caused the court to deny people
from using the service in communities where it existed. She
deferred the question to Legislative Legal Services for
further detail.
2:10:37 PM
DOUG GARDNER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), replied that Legislative Legal Services
had not considered the question, probably because they did
not know where the service was available and where it was
not. He did not know whether the issue rose to a
constitutional level and did not want to speculate. He
surmised that there were probably other bail conditions the
court could order in urban areas that may not be available
in rural areas. He explained that based on his experience
as a prosecutor in trial courts throughout Alaska, courts
tried to adjust bail conditions to the realities of the
communities in which a person was held. He believed judges
did a good job and had significant opportunity to balance
out bail conditions.
Representative Guttenberg observed that all things could
not be equal throughout the state from one community to
another. He wondered about tools that were available for
judges to provide a comparable option in a community.
Ms. Meade replied that there were a number of bail
conditions (around 18) listed in the general bail
conditions statute and other statutes that contained
special bail conditions for different offences. For
example, domestic violence, alcohol, and drug offences had
a few additional bail conditions. She stated that judges
had many choices when setting bail. The last condition
applied could be anything a judge believed would adequately
protect the community and the rights of the defendant.
2:13:30 PM
Representative Gara discussed that it was beneficial to
provide the electronic monitoring service to give people
the ability to work and in order to free up jail space. He
addressed that there were people who could afford
electronic monitoring; however, the people who could not
afford the service or lived in a community without the
service could not get the benefit of time served. He
asserted that people without access to the service had to
be in third-party custody, which was more onerous. He
stated that the third-party custody limitations were
greater than those on electronic monitoring because the
person had to be tailed around the clock. He shared that he
had just learned that the individuals in third-party
custody did not get the credit for time served. He stressed
that the bill would create two classes of people: the
people who could afford electronic monitoring would receive
credit for time served, whereas the other individuals would
not receive credit for time served. He reasoned that a
simple conceptual amendment could include third-party
custody as another way to receive credit for time served.
He explained that the amendment would save additional jail
space for two equal groups of people.
Representative Wilson replied that there were a lot of
classifications. She emphasized that the bill represented
another tool in the toolbox. She highlighted that the
service was not brought forward by a judge; it was brought
forward by the person charged. She reminded the committee
that the individuals under discussion had not been found
guilty of any crime. She asserted that people who could not
make bail may sit in jail, which was another
classification. She reasoned that electronic monitoring
made it easy for a person to prove to a judge that they
abided by any conditions specified by the court. She stated
that it was more difficult under third-party custody, which
required a person to testify that the person they had been
tasked with watching had met all of the conditions. She
hoped that the incentive would mean electronic monitoring
would become available in additional areas statewide. She
believed it was not more readily available throughout the
state because currently people did not receive credit for
time-served under electronic monitoring. She emphasized
that currently very few options were available for
treatment purposes during pretrial. She stated that the
bill could not fix everything. She was willing to work with
Representative Gara on the other issues, but she did not
believe the bill was the appropriate place. She stated that
developing the bill had been a cooperative process to
ensure that everyone could live with its changes. She
wanted the opportunity to see how the changes would work in
the coming year and to make revisions at a later time if
necessary.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Kawasaki had
joined the meeting. He added that Representative Munoz was
excused.
2:18:18 PM
Representative Edgmon asked if there was any scenario where
offenders with third-party custodians could be included in
the future. Ms. Meade replied that the idea could
potentially be taken up in the future. She stated that
until the option was in statute, the courts would not
provide credit for the time. She stated that the option
would be a policy call by the legislature, which would be
applied by the court.
Representative Edgmon hoped that in the future there would
be much more electronic monitoring utilized. He wondered
what the department envisioned for the future in an era of
downsized budgets. He believed the option would be a
greater tool for everyone to utilize.
Mr. Henderson replied that the DOC commissioner was very
interested in expanding electronic monitoring responsibly.
He furthered that the commissioner did not believe
electronic monitoring had been used effectively. He noted
that a person would not automatically receive electronic
monitoring if they committed a minor offence. He stated
that electronic monitoring needed to be done on an
individual basis and responsibly. He relayed that it was
one of the vehicles the department saw that would help
eliminate the need for a new prison. Additionally, the
department had been looking at the option of moving more
people into community residential centers.
Co-Chair Thompson asked about the current number of
incarcerated individuals awaiting pretrial. Mr. Henderson
replied that as of April 3, 2015 there were 1,875 people in
pretrial.
Representative Edgmon remarked that he was also interested
to hear from the department on the current limitation of
vendors and electronic connectivity that was perhaps out of
the state's control. Mr. Henderson agreed and deferred the
question to his colleague for additional detail.
CARRIE BELDEN, DIRECTOR, PROBATION AND PAROLE, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), replied that
electronic monitoring could be done anywhere GCI had
coverage throughout the state. She relayed that services
private companies could provide depended on their service
provider. She addressed the issue of fairness between urban
versus rural locations. She explained that the service was
limited by technology; DOC would like to have the option
available statewide, but it was not in the department's
hands.
2:22:14 PM
Representative Edgmon asked whose hands the issue was in.
Ms. Belden replied that the department was at the mercy of
the technology in some of the rural locations; some
locations did not have the cellular service tower coverage
or a reliable signal. Another concern was that when someone
violated a bail condition there had to be some sort of law
enforcement presence in the community to rectify the
violation; the issue would have to be taken into account by
the court when it decided where to place a person.
Representative Edgmon conveyed his support for the bill. He
wondered if there was a scenario that electronic monitoring
would be routinely used throughout the state in the state
(pre and post-trial). Ms. Belden replied in the
affirmative. There was new technology that was rapidly
developing that she hoped would be available in Alaska in
the next couple of years that would help the state to
expand and provide a better service.
Representative Edgmon asked for verification that the
availability of private vendors was not a limiting factor.
Ms. Belden believed the limitation was related to cellular
towers.
Representative Wilson noted that the bill had removed the
word "private" preceding the word "residence" in order to
prevent limiting electronic monitoring to a person's home.
She noted that a residence could be a halfway house or
other, which was another way the bill aimed at addressing
more rural areas.
2:25:05 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the GPS
element of an ankle monitor was only for location purposes
and the communication between the monitor and the
authorities was via cellular telephones. Ms. Belden replied
in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether counting time served on
electronic monitoring as equal to time served in
incarceration was too generous. Ms. Meade replied that the
issue was a policy call for the legislature. She elaborated
that one-day to one-day was the ratio currently in statute
(AS 12.55.027) for time spent pretrial in a treatment
program. She detailed that currently the only way to get
credit for time served was in a residential treatment
program with characteristics that resembled incarceration.
Vice-Chair Saddler summarized his understanding of Ms.
Meade's response to his prior question. Ms. Meade agreed.
Mr. Henderson concurred with Ms. Meade's statements.
Representative Wilson clarified that the treatment program
had to be state-approved. When a person was confined to the
program, they currently received the one-day for one-day
pretrial. She added that it was currently the only way to
receive the credit for time served.
Vice-Chair Saddler likened the current statute to the
bill's requirement that a person on electronic monitoring
would be confined to their place of residence unless they
were working or in a treatment center.
Representative Wilson stressed that in order for a person
to qualify for time served they were not allowed to leave
the treatment center.
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified his point that currently the
one-to-one ratio applied only to a confined treatment
center and that the bill would require a person to be
confined to home with an exemption for going to treatment.
Representative Wilson agreed.
2:27:27 PM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how the bill would reduce costs
for the state. Ms. Meade replied that the bill would not
reduce any costs within the court system. She elaborated
that it was routine for courts to issue bail orders; some
modifications may be made to court form orders, but that
was inconsequential and something the court did anyway. She
detailed that it was also routine for the courts to have
"Nygren hearings or 027 hearings" at sentencing where
people asked for credit. She thought there may be some
longer hearings at the outset if the legislation was
implemented, but the courts would have no fiscal impact.
She stated that changes would be fairly routine for the
courts to apply.
Mr. Henderson replied that the savings to DOC were
indeterminate. The department anticipated that there could
be potential savings. He stated that it was more cost-
effective to be on electronic monitoring than in a "hard
bed." He stated that the cost of $22 per day versus $150
per day meant there was potentially room for some savings.
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 1:
BY REPRESENTATIVE GARA
Delete "and the court imposes substantial restrictions
on the person's freedom of movement and behavior while
under the electronic monitoring program, including
requiring the person to be confined to a residence
except for a (1) court appearance; (2) meeting with
counsel; or (3) period during which the person is at a
location ordered by the court for the purposes of
employment, attending an educational or vocational
training, performing community volunteer work, or
attending a rehabilitative activity or medical
appointment"
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual amendment
that would apply the same rules related to credit for time
served for people in third-party custody as for people on
electronic monitoring.
Representative Gattis OBJECTED.
Representative Gara spoke to his amendment. He stated that
the people who would be put on electronic monitoring
largely had some threat of escape or danger to society.
Additionally, there was the problem of overcrowded prisons
in Alaska and the looming possibility of needing to build
another prison. He believed that the state needed to find
rational ways to minimize the number of days spent in
prison, while maintaining public safety. He believed it
made sense to use electronic monitoring, which would free
up prison space and would potentially be more humane. He
believed the same should be done for people under third-
party custody because they had the same restrictions and
had a person tailing them 24-hours per day. He continued
that the same purposes were served under electronic
monitoring and third-party custody; a person was required
to act under the court's conditions in both scenarios. He
furthered that a person would not receive the credit if
they violated their bail condition under both scenarios. He
noted that the two classes of people were essentially the
same: one class could afford electronic monitoring or lived
in a location where it was available, whereas the other
class that did not have the service available had to find a
24-hour third-party custodian to tail them. He added the
third-party custodian had to sign under oath that they
would be with the individual around the clock or they would
risk going to jail. He did not believe there was any
difference between the two categories of people. He
believed the introduction of a bill related to third-party
custodians in the future was unlikely. He stressed that
currently the bill would only benefit people who could
afford the service and who lived in a community where it
was available. He opposed discriminating against people who
did not have the service available.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony
Representative Wilson spoke against the amendment. She
stated that a lobbyist had not brought the bill forward.
She emphasized her commitment towards making something
work. She did not believe the situations highlighted by
Representative Gara were the same because a third-party
custodian was not awake 24 hours per day. She stated that
it was not possible to verify the movement of the person in
custody 24-7. She stated that it was different with an
electronic device because it tracked where a person was at
all times. She furthered that people who know how to break
the law often knew how to break it again. She stated that
the court did not have to provide the credit if it could
not be proven that a person only went where the court
designated was allowable. She did not believe the amendment
matched the intent of the bill.
Co-Chair Thompson asked the Public Defender Agency to weigh
in on the conceptual amendment.
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, addressed whether the bill
would create a disparity or inequity around the state. He
stated that an inequity currently existed to a huge degree.
For example, people with money could afford to make the
cash bail much more easily than people without money. He
believed access to electronic monitoring actually reduced
the inequity; it was often easier to afford the cost of
electronic monitoring than a large bail. He furthered that
general inequities existed around the state depending on
what programs, treatment, or options may be available. He
believed implementing the concept in statute would provide
incentive for the expansion of the program to other
communities. He noted that technology was becoming more
sophisticated. He referred to discussion that the bill
could cause DOC to potentially expand into pretrial
release. He saw the bill as promoting release and reducing
inequity and recidivism because it could be linked to
treatment. He believed including third-party custodians
would further reduce inequities. He detailed that third-
party custodians served a similar, but not identical
function. He added that the inclusion of third-party
custodians would be a policy call. He concluded that
granting credit for third-party would be a further
extension of the general policy, but there were subtle
differences between the two.
2:37:59 PM
Representative Gattis communicated that she had signed on
as a co-sponsor of the bill. She had heard from
constituents who had kids with infractions that were
sitting in jail instead of working or going to treatment
centers. She stressed if they were found not guilty they
had lost their job and sometimes their families. She stated
that if the individuals were found guilty, at least there
was an opportunity to inspire them to get off the wrong
track and move forward. She stressed that not only did the
bill save the state money, it would save families. She
stated that the bill would provide an opportunity to
individuals should they choose to utilize it. She supported
the bill and thought that the third-party custodian aspect
would "bungle" the legislation. She did not believe it was
onerous for the client using a third-party custodian, but
it was onerous to be the third-party custodian. She
stressed that the third-party custodian had to give up many
of their liberties to follow someone around. She was
reluctant to make the change. She liked DOC's attitude and
believed it was the department's goal to move forward.
Representative Guttenberg asked for a definition of
electronic monitoring. He stated that there were electronic
monitoring apps on smart phones. He wondered if the
definition only pertained to an ankle bracelet.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the committee was addressing
the conceptual amendment.
Representative Guttenberg thought the definition of
electronic monitoring was relevant. He wondered if it could
be expanded to anyone with a smart phone.
Representative Wilson replied that the bill focused on
ankle monitoring. She deferred to the court system for
further detail on what it had allowed.
Ms. Meade replied that judges had approved companies that
used ankle monitors with GPS active monitoring. She
detailed that a judge could designate certain exclusion
zones. For example, the monitoring company would receive a
beep if the person went to certain areas they were not
supposed to go (e.g. the victim's home, a school, or
other). She noted that electronic monitors measuring
alcohol existed, but were not used as much.
Representative Guttenberg asked if a GPS pretrial
monitoring program qualified. Ms. Meade confirmed that it
was all pretrial that was covered.
Representative Guttenberg stated that "theoretically a
judge could order this device instead of an ankle bracelet"
for someone in Bethel. Ms. Meade believed the court had
only approved ankle bracelets with GPS as electronic
monitors. She had not seen a situation where the court had
released a person with electronic monitoring via the
individual's cell phone.
2:43:39 PM
Representative Edgmon requested to hear from the court
system on whether the amendment would bog down the bill,
knowing that electronic monitoring was more at a formative
stage. Ms. Meade asked for clarification. Representative
Edgmon clarified.
Ms. Meade replied that adding a third-party custodian into
the bill would be a policy call. She agreed with Mr.
Steiner and others who had said that there were differences
between being under a third-party custodian arrangement and
being on an electronic monitor with one of the vendors
known to the court.
Representative Edgmon asked if the amendment gave the court
another tool to apply. Ms. Meade did not see the amendment
as providing the court with another tool. Currently the
court could order third-party custodians; therefore, she
did not believe the amendment would give the court
something else it could offer to people out on bail.
Representative Gattis commented that a person with a
monitoring app on their phone could give the phone to
anyone. She reasoned that the cellphone would have to be
attached to a person's ankle. She believed the concept of
using cellphones as monitors was taking the conversation
too far into the weeds.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether third-party custodianship
provided less reliable information about compliance than
electronic monitoring. Ms. Meade replied that an electronic
monitor provided more reliable information about where a
person had been pretrial than a third-party custodian;
however, it could vary with the truthfulness of the
custodian and other factors.
Mr. Henderson deferred the question to Ms. Belden. He added
that he agreed with Ms. Meade's statements.
2:46:36 PM
Representative Gattis MAINTAINED her OBJECTION to the
conceptual amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Edgmon, Gara
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Thompson
Co-Chair Neuman and Representative Munoz were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4/5).
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke in support of the legislation. He
remarked on the significant cost of recidivism. He stated
that the bill would provide one tool to work towards
addressing the issue. He discussed that the bill "hits
people when they are recently incarcerated, when they are
most amenable to having behavior modified" and reduced a
person's exposure to the potential hardening aspects of
incarceration. He remarked that the service was optional on
both the part of the person incarcerated and the court
system. He believed the service was a decent tool.
2:48:11 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 15(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 15(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with four previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM), FN2 (ADM), FN3 (COR), FN4 (LAW).
2:48:42 PM
AT EASE
2:51:57 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Workdraft CSHB15 4-8-2015.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 137 CS WORKDRAFT FIN G Version.PDF |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 176 CS WORKDRAFT E version.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Legal Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Letters.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 137 Support letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 15 Amendment #1.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 137 Additional Info Sommerville.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |