Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
02/20/2025 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 | |
| HB69 HOUSE BILL NO. 69 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 69
"An Act relating to education funding; and providing
for an effective date."
1:37:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REBECCA HIMSCHOOT, SPONSOR, introduced the
PowerPoint presentation "HB 69 Base Student Allocation"
dated February 20, 2025 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Foster noted that Representative Andi Story,
Representative Justin Ruffridge, and Representative Julie
Coulombe were in the audience.
Representative Himschoot continued on slide 2 and explained
that HB 69 addressed two objectives: to restore education
funding to the level in 2011 and to inflation-proof the
funding. She stated that the bill began by inflation-
proofing the current base student allocation (BSA), which
was the starting point for the education funding formula.
She explained that the bill then added $1,000, followed by
an additional inflation-proofing in FY 27 and an increase
of $404. In FY 28, the bill continued to inflation-proof by
adding another $404, followed by continued inflation-
proofing each year thereafter without further additions.
Representative Himschoot stated that the targeted amount of
$1,808 aimed to restore the purchasing power of the BSA to
its 2011 level. She noted that 2011 represented the last
year in which districts were able to achieve "the most"
with the funding that had been invested. She explained that
the presentation would cover how schools had changed, the
barriers presented by the current funding level, the
effects of underfunding, what inflation-proofing would
achieve, and a reminder of the constitutional obligation
related to education.
Representative Himschoot added that she had worked as an
educator for approximately 30 years in both formal and
informal settings. She had met with at least 1,000 families
and often encountered families who were not fully prepared
for the demands of parenting, whether due to personal
struggles, the need to work multiple jobs, or other
factors. However, she emphasized that she had never met a
family that did not love their children. She stated that
the same principle applied to those working in the
legislature, as she believed that everyone was trying to
achieve the best outcomes for Alaska's children.
1:40:09 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that Representative Dan Saddler was
also in the audience.
Representative Himschoot continued to slide 3 and explained
that it illustrated the mistaken assumption that schools
had not changed from 1940 to 2025. She stated that the year
1940 had been selected at random, as the presentation
sought to compare schools from approximately 100 years ago.
She noted that although classrooms looked similar in
structure, one fundamental element had not changed: the
relationship between teacher and student. She emphasized
that the relationship remained the most significant factor
in student learning, apart from the influence of the
student's family.
Representative Himschoot continued to slide 4 and stated
that while that core relationship between student and
teacher had not changed between 1940 and 2025, it would be
naïve to assume that schools had remained the same. She
explained that modern schools featured significant
technological resources that prepared students for the
future. She noted that the presence of fine arts programs
engaged even reluctant learners and enhanced brain
development through creative expression. Modern students
also participated in science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) programming that prepared them for future
opportunities. Modern classrooms included students speaking
world languages, including heritage languages, and students
learning languages as part of their core education. She
emphasized that career and technical education (CTE)
programs did not exist 100 years ago. The programs included
16 different pathways, ranging from medical licensing and
culinary arts to welding and small engine repair. She noted
that all of the programs cost money to operate. She
cautioned against underestimating the value of what
occurred in classrooms or the cost of providing educational
opportunities.
Co-Chair Foster recognized that Representative Bryce Edgmon
had joined the audience and thanked him for attending.
Representative Himschoot proceeded to slide 5 and stated
that it illustrated the funding problem currently facing
schools. She referred to the far-right column of the chart,
which showed that inflation had increased by nearly 40
percent between 2011 and the present day. She explained
that the adjacent column displayed the increase to the BSA
over the same time period, which had been less than 7
percent. She stated that the total increase in dollars had
been $380.
1:43:32 PM
Representative Himschoot continued to slide 6 and relayed
that the figures referred to funding within the BSA and
that that there was a difference between BSA increases and
one-time funding. She explained that one-time funding did
not reach the classrooms directly. School districts often
did not receive finalized budget information until the end
of June, sometimes within a week of the new fiscal year.
She stated that the timing made it difficult for schools to
determine how many teachers could be employed or which
programs could be maintained. She described the delay as a
failure in the state's funding policy.
Representative Himschoot stated that school districts were
in a difficult position. Every district was grateful for
one-time funding and would use it appropriately, but some
districts might have to refill fund balances that had been
drained to retain educators or to purchase new phone
systems or curriculum materials. She stated that such
funding could not be used to negotiate contracts. She had
attended budget subcommittees and she often asked whether
agencies had negotiated with their bargaining units. She
shared that the typical response was that there had been
negotiations, and that the agreements typically included
salary increases around 2.5 percent or 3 percent. She noted
that the increases were then funded by the legislature. She
explained that school districts, on the other hand, funded
similar salary increases for educators through the BSA,
which was the money that districts received from the
legislature. She emphasized that school districts did not
have the ability to raise revenue independently.
Co-Chair Foster acknowledged that Representative Jubilee
Underwood had joined the audience and thanked her for
attending.
Representative Bynum remarked that he had heard repeated
comments over the past several weeks about one-time funding
not going into the classroom. He stated that his experience
had been different. When funding was not increased or when
one-time funding had not yet been approved, school
districts would often issue pink slips for teachers and
announce plans to lay off staff. He explained that
districts would also propose eliminating music programs,
sports programs, and CTE programs. Once the legislature
approved one-time funding, the districts would often
retract the pink slips and, in some cases, restore the
programs. He asserted that the programs and staff cuts had
directly impacted classrooms, which he had observed in his
own district. He asked whether Representative Himschoot had
reviewed practices across multiple districts or if the
issue she described was unique to a particular district.
Representative Himschoot responded that it was a good
question and that there was a difference between what was
cut and what was kept. She stated that when districts had
nothing left to cut, they eventually began cutting programs
in the classroom. She assumed that all districts initially
sought to cut programs outside the classroom and would try
to continue using outdated textbooks and make other
sacrifices. She stated that some districts might attempt to
lower the temperature in classrooms to save energy,
although there was a statute that required classrooms to be
kept at certain temperatures. After eliminating non-
essential expenses, districts then began cutting essential
programs and, in some cases, begun cutting core
instructional services. She referenced slide 6 and noted
that there were years when no one-time funding had been
allocated. She explained that in 2021 and 2022, a
significant amount of COVID-19-related funding had been
distributed and the legislature had used the funding to
stabilize its own budget without fully considering the
effect on school districts. The districts had been able to
weather the situation temporarily, but the impact of the
lack of support was now being felt.
1:48:03 PM
Representative Bynum stated that in his experience,
districts negotiated contracts such as rates for health
insurance independently of whether revenue had been secured
through the state, federal grants, or other sources. He
understood that hiring decisions were often made without
regard to available funding. After the COVID-19 pandemic,
schools in Ketchikan had faced tremendous pressure because
contracts had been established without guaranteed revenue.
He asked if there had been seen similar situations in other
districts around the state.
Representative Himschoot responded that Representative
Bynum had described the problem she was trying to address.
She stated that districts had to make commitments and could
not simply eliminate an entire grade level, particularly in
rural areas. She remarked that a district either had a
third grade or it did not, and those decisions could not be
made after contract negotiations in July. By that time, it
would be difficult or impossible to hire a teacher. She
explained that the process had been painful during her time
on the bargaining team in her district. Any increase to her
own compensation meant a cut somewhere else in the budget.
She thought that most school boards wanted to pay educators
more but felt they could not do so under uncertain budget
conditions. She stated that even with the inflation-
proofing proposal she had introduced in the bill, budgets
would remain limited. However, districts would at least
know in advance what the funding would be, even if it was
not as much as was desired.
1:50:01 PM
Representative Himschoot continued on slide 7 which
detailed the impacts of flat funding and the uncertainty
caused by unpredictable budgeting. She began by describing
the impacts on urban districts and used the Matanuska-
Susitna Valley (Mat-Su) as an example. She explained that
in Mat-Su, the cost of insurance since 2011 had increased
by more than 100 percent, transportation costs had
increased by more than 60 percent, and energy costs had
increased by more than 50 percent. The increases varied by
district.
Representative Himschoot continued to slide 8 and detailed
the impacts in a rural district like Sitka. She explained
that insurance costs in Sitka had risen by nearly 80
percent, transportation costs by more than 90 percent, and
energy costs by more than 1,000 percent. She continued to
slide 9 and relayed that in very remote districts such as
Bering Strait, the cost trends differed again.
Representative Himschoot stated that the differences
illustrated why the BSA was an effective way to fund
schools. She explained that it provided local school boards
the flexibility to meet needs specific to their
communities. Although she had discussed fixed costs, local
boards could also make programmatic decisions based on
their priorities. For example, if 1,000 immigrants arrived
in Mat-Su, the local board might allocate additional
funding to support English language learners. In her own
district of Sitka, community stakeholders participated in a
decision-making process during a period of limited funding.
The locally elected school board and stakeholders decided
to increase class sizes in two grade levels in order to
afford counselors in all five school buildings. She
emphasized that while some expenses could be adjusted
locally, fixed costs were outside of local control and the
costs applied regardless of student enrollment.
Representative Allard asked if there was a slide on the
Anchorage School District (ASD).
Representative Himschoot responded in the negative.
Representative Allard stated that ASD was the largest
school district in the state, and she thought it was
important to include it in the presentation. She asked how
an increase to the BSA could be justified when ASD had lost
3,000 students, but its budget had increased to nearly $1
billion. She noted that districts could generally
anticipate future funding based on past allocations, yet
Anchorage's budget had continued to increase.
Representative Himschoot responded that she had not
included a slide for Anchorage because she had chosen to
illustrate one urban, one rural, and one remote district.
She acknowledged that she had selected her home district as
one of the examples. Although districts generally could
predict a minimum level of funding, school budgeting
differed from family or state budgeting. She explained that
school districts sought to invest all available funding
into the classroom and into the education of children. If
the minimum funding amount was insufficient to meet
increasing fixed costs, districts would be forced to cut
program offerings unless there was an increase in the BSA
or an infusion of one-time funding.
Representative Allard asked if Representative Himschoot
believed that 65 or 70 percent of the income from the BSA
should be directed into the classroom.
Representative Himschoot replied that Alaska previously had
such a statute on the books, and she had studied the issue
but did not have the information with her. She relayed that
the statute was repealed for several reasons, including
that districts were generally unable to meet the demand of
the 70 percent to 30 percent threshold. She added that the
requirement had resulted in concerns about creative
budgeting to meet the standard rather than allocating funds
based on actual need.
Representative Allard understood that Representative
Himschoot had served on the State Board of Education when
the statute was repealed, and that Representative Himschoot
did not agree with the statute. She stated that school
districts previously had the ability to apply for waivers.
She asserted that accountability was lost when the statute
was repealed and stated that Representative Himschoot had
led the effort as a member of the board.
Representative Himschoot confirmed that she had served on
the board at the time. She explained that the board had
accepted the recommendation from the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) and that she had
been one of five voting members on a seven-member board.
1:55:11 PM
Representative Himschoot continued on slide 10 which
detailed the impact of school funding failing to keep pace
with inflation. She described the current situation as a
crisis that was both real and immediate. She noted that
many individuals in the room had family members or schools
directly impacted by a loss of funding. In the face of
inflation, flat funding constituted a reduction in
purchasing power.
Representative Galvin recalled that the primary concern
when the 70 percent to 30 percent funding requirement was
repealed was that rural districts were struggling with the
escalating costs of transporting energy and diesel fuel to
school buildings. She noted that many rural districts had
required waivers and that the board had determined the
statute was unworkable under the circumstances. She added
that the issue had been less pronounced for larger
districts such as Anchorage.
Representative Jimmie stated that she had recently spoken
with students from her district, including students from
the Qugcuun Memorial School, the Lower Kuskokwim School
District, and the Kashunamiut School District. She reported
that students described the loss of teachers due to housing
shortages, resulting in students being taught via iPads,
which was limiting. She shared that a school in Tuluksak
was leaking fuel, yet students continued to attend school.
Some students attended school in snow pants because of
broken windows or shifting school structures that were
built in the 1960s, and many schools lacked extracurricular
activities other than physical sports such as basketball
and cross-country. She asked if other districts were having
similar issues.
Representative Himschoot responded that similar types of
issues were being reported across the state. She shared
that in her home district of Sitka, schools had shifted
from offering electives to assigning students to study
halls because two or three classrooms could be overseen by
a single teacher in a study hall. Many schools had cut
music programs, which was particularly startling because a
substantial number of professional musicians had come from
her community of 8,000 residents. Some individuals were
currently performing in world-class orchestras. The lower
elementary music program that had launched such a legacy
had now been cut. She emphasized that the cuts were
affecting programs that enriched schools across the state
and that cuts in her own district had gone so deep that
there was discussion about school closures. She stated that
in her community, closing a school meant closing a
community.
1:59:28 PM
Representative Himschoot continued on slide 11 and stated
that the flat funding that districts had received amidst
years of cumulative inflation had caused a "perfect storm."
She explained that schools were competing nationally for
certified teachers and that on the first day of the current
school year, 600 classrooms lacked a certified teacher. She
continued to slide 12 and relayed that one creative
solution had been to hire emergency certificate teachers,
who might one day become excellent educators. However, she
noted that like most professions, teaching improved with
experience. She would be concerned if many individuals
teaching in classrooms had not completed student teaching.
Often, the issuance of a teaching certificate marked the
beginning of an individual's teaching experience. She
emphasized that learning to become a teacher required a
mentor teacher. She believed she became a decent teacher
not in her first or second year of teacher, but in her
third, fourth, and fifth year.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Representative Rebecca Schwanke
was in the audience.
Representative Himschoot noted that scarcity bred
innovation, and school districts had begun recruiting
experienced and certified teachers from overseas as soon as
COVID-19 pandemic restrictions allowed. She stated that
slide 12 reflected those international hires.
Representative Himschoot continued to slide 13 which
offered more detailed information about inflation proofing.
She thought inflation proofing would provide districts with
stability and predictability. She acknowledged that it
might not offer the increases districts wanted, but it
would offer the increases the districts needed. The
approach would also allow the legislature to direct funding
in a more deliberate manner rather than debating basic
educational obligations. There was a constitutional mandate
to establish and maintain a system of public education and
inflation proofing could allow the legislature to target
additional funds toward programs it prioritized. The final
bullet point on the slide addressed the state's
constitutional obligation. She relayed that inflation
proofing was currently used in ten other states, all of
which had adopted it within the past decade. The proposed
bill based the calculation on the average of three of the
past four fiscal years, which would be applied to the
current BSA. She reiterated that one-time funding did not
always reach the classroom directly. If a district could
find and hire a certified and experienced educator, the
funds might support the classroom. However, it was more
often the case that one-time funds were used to backfill
expenses that districts had already incurred. She
emphasized that district budgets were composed of 80
percent to 85 percent personnel, meaning cuts usually
affected staff. Consequently, districts often had to rehire
individuals who they had already notified of job losses
with the one-time funding. She expressed appreciation for
the committee's time and stressed the importance of
following the constitutional requirement to fund public
education. She added that the BSA uplifted all types of
schools, including correspondence, neighborhood, and
charter schools.
Co-Chair Foster recognized that Representative Bill Elam
had joined the audience earlier.
Representative Stapp appreciated the time Representative
Himschoot had spent on the bill. He thought she had
consistently emphasized the urgency of legislative action
on the issue. He noted that he had a few questions for DEED
regarding the cost of the bill and the inflation-proofing
mechanism.
2:06:06 PM
HEATHER HEINEKEN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), asked if Representative Stapp had a
specific question.
Representative Stapp confirmed that he did. He referred to
the previously published fiscal note 2 from DEED (copy on
file) [OMB component 2804, control code VytxP] and noted
that the first year appropriation for the bill would be
$325 million, with the second year adding $173 million,
followed by $144 million, and then $51 million for
inflation proofing. He asked if the amounts were
cumulative, meaning that by FY 27, the appropriation would
total $500 million more than current levels.
Ms. Heineken responded that his interpretation was correct
and added that updated fiscal notes were forthcoming.
Representative Stapp asked for confirmation that the same
cumulative approach applied to the fiscal note from DEED
with OMB component 1060 (copy on file)[control code pKFNU]
for Mt. Edgecumbe High School in Sitka.
Ms. Heineken responded in the affirmative.
Representative Stapp stated that the main issue surrounding
the bill was the cost, which would be nearly $1 billion in
additional state contributions. He thought Representative
Himschoot had articulated the challenges faced by teachers
quite clearly. He did not see any way the legislature could
meet the obligations required if the bill were to pass due
to its fiscal limitations. He asked what type of revenue
measures the House Majority intended to propose, or what
type of cuts it planned to offer, in order to meet the
financial obligations of the bill. He understood that the
bill was a caucus priority for the majority.
Representative Himschoot addressed "Representative
Stappasaurus." She expressed appreciation that the
committee was addressing the issue.
Representative Johnson interjected. She stated that she
hoped decorum would be maintained in the House Finance
Committee.
Representative Himschoot apologized for the remark and
continued her response. She stated that when a child
entered an Alaskan school of any kind, the child deserved
the opportunity to become whatever they wished to be in
life. She stated that the legislature had an obligation
under the constitution to make education available so that
children could pursue their goals. She acknowledged that
difficult decisions lay ahead and appreciated the question.
Every person in the state deserved high-quality education
and the legislature needed to find a solution.
Representative Stapp commented that the state did not have
the money and he could not support the bill without a plan
to cover the cost. He was interested in hearing what
proposals the majority would bring forward to fund the
bill, but reiterated that he could not support it without
more information. He acknowledged the bill was a high
priority for the majority and stated his intention to move
the bill from committee.
Representative Stapp MOVED to REPORT HB 69 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
Co-Chair Foster asked whether there was any objection.
2:11:05 PM
AT EASE
2:11:39 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Allard OBJECTED. She clarified that she did
not object to moving the bill forward in general. She
stated that her objection was based on not having heard a
clear explanation of how the revenue to support the bill
would be generated, especially as that cost continued to
increase with inflation.
Representative Allard WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Foster confirmed that the objection had been
withdrawn and asked whether there were any further
objections.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion. He stated that
he would soon remove the objection. He expressed hope that
if the bill were calendared on the House floor with
sufficient committee support, negotiations with the
administration could continue in order to achieve a
successful outcome.
Co-Chair Josephson WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
2:12:56 PM
AT EASE
2:15:24 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Bynum OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Bynum stated that he had many thoughts about
the bill, as well as about the broader condition of
education. He emphasized that it was a "money bill," not a
policy bill. He thought Representative Stapp had raised an
important point regarding the financial nature of the
proposal. He stated that the discussion needed to focus on
how to fund the bill. He viewed the bill was a $2.9 billion
expenditure over the next five years and noted that the
state currently did not have the revenue to support that
level of spending. Education was critically important to
his district and the funding issues at hand were serious.
He reiterated that he had numerous questions about the bill
and how the legislature would reach a point where it could
address all aspects of education in a holistic way. He
stated that funding was an essential part of those efforts.
He expressed skepticism that the bill in its current form
would achieve its goal. He acknowledged that many
discussions had already occurred and that the discussion
would continue. He wished to participate in further
conversations but did not intend to hold up the process if
progress could be made toward solutions for school
districts in a timely manner.
Representative Bynum WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
2:17:50 PM
Representative Johnson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Johnson acknowledged that there appeared to
be a desire to move the bill forward quickly, which she
thought was hasty rather than prudent. She did not believe
she could effectively slow the process but wanted to share
her perspective. There were limited options available when
attempting to increase the state's unrestricted general
fund (UGF) spending by $1 billion, particularly in the
context of a $5 billion state budget. There were only so
many sources from which the state could obtain funding. She
asserted that the proposal effectively meant taking the
Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) from "every man, woman, and
child," including those attending school and those who
relied on the dividend to heat their homes, purchase
clothing, or buy food.
Representative Johnson added that alternative revenue
measures could include oil taxes, a personal income tax, or
a sales tax. However, the legislature had already
considered similar measures and the associated revenue
targets were difficult to reach. She thought that examining
the issues in isolation was not responsible. Although an
idea might seem worthwhile on its own, the House Finance
Committee did not function as a single-subject committee.
She emphasized that the committee was also responsible for
funding roads, social services, the Department of
Corrections (DOC), the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), and other priorities. While she would like to direct
substantial funding to many of her preferred projects,
doing so would not be fiscally prudent or responsible. She
stated that she would not stop the process from proceeding.
Representative Johnson WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Schrage acknowledged that paying for the bill was
a legitimate concern. However, he thought that the more
important questions should be how to set students up for
success, meet the schools' needs, and how to ensure that
Alaska maintained an adequate education system. He
emphasized the importance of ensuring a bright future for
Alaskan families and stressed that the legislature must
work with the administration to develop both policy and
funding to achieve its goals. He added that if the cost
exceeded current resources, it would be necessary to find
new funding rather than "shortchange" students. The bill
was only one step in the legislative process and the
conversation was far from over. He thought the committee
understood the fiscal impact of the bill well and content
and fiscal implications were well understood.
Co-Chair Schrage shared that he had some hesitation about
bypassing the full committee process and not taking
testimony, but noted that the House Education Committee had
already undertaken extensive work on the issue, both in the
current and prior legislative sessions. He remarked that
thousands of families, teachers, students, and parents had
weighed in during the process, and that the legislature had
received invited testimony throughout. He stressed that
legislators were already well informed on the issue. While
he had some reservations, considering the robust prior
process, the understanding of the bill, and the urgency, he
felt more comfortable moving the bill quickly. He stated
that continued collaboration would be essential to meet the
expectations of Alaskans. The current state of education in
Alaska was unacceptable and the legislature must act to
improve the future for the state's youth. He acknowledged
that the bill in its current form would not be the final
product and that further work would be required. He
recognized the urgency created by approaching school
district budget deadlines and stressed the need to provide
school districts with certainty. He thanked the bill's
sponsor for introducing the bill and thanked Representative
Stapp for prompting action.
Co-Chair Schrage WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
2:23:18 PM
Representative Galvin OJBECTED for discussion. She thought
it was important to ask what would happen if the
legislature failed to fund the bill and the state did not
set children up for success. She asked when the legislature
would stop prioritizing the price of oil over making
decisions based on what children needed. She admitted that
the situation was frustrating and acknowledged that many
conversations about revenue still needed to take place. She
expressed that she looked forward to additional
discussions.
Representative Galvin noted that it was important to
understand what it meant to operate under a structural
deficit and wondered if the public understood the concept.
She asked how the state would work together to resolve the
deficit. There were many long-term decisions that needed to
be addressed as soon as possible and she did not want to
continue having the same conversation. She appreciated the
work of the bill's sponsor and recognized that significant
additional work was ongoing. All members wanted to reach
consensus and celebrate the achievement together.
Representative Galvin WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
2:25:11 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked if there were any further objections
to reporting the bill out. There being NO further
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 69 was REPORTED out of committee with five "do pass"
recommendations, four "do not pass" recommendations, one
"amend" recommendation, and one "no recommendation"
recommendation, and with two new fiscal impact notes from
the Department of Education and Early Development and one
new zero fiscal impact note from the Department of
Education and Early Development.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda for the
following day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 69 HFIN LFD - BSA Foundation Presentation 2-20-25.pdf |
HFIN 2/20/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB 69 Public Testimony Rec'd by 022025.pdf |
HFIN 2/20/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB 69 Public Testimony Pkt 2.pdf |
HFIN 2/20/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |