Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/04/2015 03:15 PM 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 | |
| HB123 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 123-ESTABLISH MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD
3:18:57 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 123, "An Act establishing the Marijuana
Control Board; relating to the powers and duties of the
Marijuana Control Board; relating to the appointment, removal,
and duties of the director of the Marijuana Control Board;
relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; and providing
for an effective date."
3:19:25 PM
MICHAELA FOWLER, Legislative Liaison, Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED), on behalf of the
administration, stated that HB 123 is the governor's bill to
create the Marijuana Control Board (MCB). She explained that
following passage of Ballot Measure 2 in November 2014, the
administration began exploring different regulatory structures
that might be appropriate for regulating marijuana. The
initiative specified that the legislature has the authority to
create a separate control agency for marijuana, but if the
legislature does not create a control board, it will default to
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board"). Initially,
the administration favored creating a separate marijuana board,
but logistically and economically it did not make sense to set
up a new agency and board. Further, the administration did not
favor having the ABC Board as the only board regulating
marijuana so it developed a hybrid solution. Under the hybrid
solution, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board)
agency would support two boards: the Marijuana Control Board
and the ABC Board.
3:20:58 PM
MS. FOWLER offered that the hybrid proposal would allow the
administration to use the experience of the ABC Board's staff,
in particular, its enforcement staff, while reducing set up
costs associated with setting up an entire new entity, while
achieving the intent of the initiative and meeting the statutory
deadlines set out within the initiative. The majority of the
bill parallels statutes that set up the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board (ABC Board), with changes to reflect the substance
being regulated and the Title 4 [Alcoholic Beverages], working
group product including suggestions from over 60 stakeholders
who participated in a multi-year process.
3:21:53 PM
MS. FOWLER provided a section-by-section analysis of the bill.
Section 1 would amend Title 4, name the director of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board) as the director of
the Marijuana Control Board (MCB), and establish the process for
appointment and removal of the director.
3:22:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the rationale for changing who
may remove the director from the governor to the board.
MS. FOWLER answered that currently the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board (ABC Board), and not the governor, can remove the
director. This language would amend it so both boards will have
a say since the same executive director will serve both boards.
3:22:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO asked what would happen if one board votes
to remove the executive director, but the other board does not
concur.
MS. FOWLER answered that the other board would have to concur.
She explained that each board would separately need to have a
majority vote to remove the executive director. If one voted
for and the other one voted against removal, it would result in
a situation where the director will remain. In response to
Representative LeDoux, she directed attention to Section 4, page
5, line 5, Section 17.38.085, of the bill and read, "The board
may remove the director by majority vote of the full membership
...." She said this language is reiterated in Section 1, [AS
04.06.070] which allows the Marijuana Control Board (MCB) to
remove the director by a majority vote of the full membership of
the ABC Board and a majority of the full membership of the MCB.
She explained that the executive director position falls in two
titles so it was necessary to address the removal of the
director in each title.
3:25:07 PM
MS. FOWLER continued with the section-by-section analysis.
Section 2 would establish a five-member Marijuana Control Board
MCB) in Title 17 with designated seats for public health, rural,
public safety, and industry. She said that this language
reflects the way the administration wishes alcohol was
regulated, but it does not represent the way the ABC Board is
currently structured since the ABC Board does not have any
requirement for a public health or public safety member to serve
on the board. She indicated that the administration believes it
the emerging marijuana industry should have both of those
representatives on the board.
3:25:50 PM
MS. FOWLER stated that Section 3 establishes terms of office for
board members and the chair, set out requirements for board
meetings, and provide for board member per diem. Section 3 also
outlines the powers and duties of the board to propose and adopt
regulations, establish qualifications for licensure, review
applications for licensure, hear appeals from the actions of the
director, reduce the area of a licensed premise, and adopt
regulations according to AS 44.63. This section would also
establish the board's enforcement powers by mirroring those of
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board outlined in AS 04.06.110,
as well as providing for appointment and removal of the director
and establishes the duties of the director.
3:26:32 PM
MS. FOWLER stated that Section 4 would define the board in AS
17.38.900(1) to mean the Marijuana Control Board (MCB) created
by this act, and Section 5 defines "director" as the director of
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board) and Marijuana
Control Board (MCB). She clarified that it would also define
"registration" to mean registration or licensure as determined
by regulation.
MS. FOWLER related that Section 6 would amend the duties of the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED) to include provisions for clerical and administrative
support for the Marijuana Control Board (ABC Board) which
mirrors the language in the ABC Board.
3:27:10 PM
MS. FOWLER stated that Section 7 would amend uncodified law for
initial appointment of the MCB board members, and Section 8
would provide for transition on regulations such that if the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board) adopts any
regulations before the Marijuana Control Board (MCB) was
created, those regulations can be implemented, enforced, amended
or repealed by the Marijuana Control Board (MCB) and it further
provides that regulations adopted by the board in any transition
period will take effect after the effective date of the act.
Finally, Section 9 would provide for an immediate effective
date.
3:27:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO directed attention to Section 2 to the
membership composition of the board. He noted the requirement
for two industry members with experience in the industry within
the previous five years. Since the state does not currently
have an industry, he wondered how that could occur.
MS. FOWLER answered that the intent would be to fill those
positions by selecting people who have been active in passage of
the initiative or have been lobbying on behalf of the marijuana
industry. She envisioned the department would need to take a
very broad perspective when filling the positions; however, the
department does not mean this language will pertain to people
who have been involved in the illegal marijuana industry in the
past five years.
3:28:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO said he saw a distinction between people
advocating for an interest and those with an active role in
overseeing a business. He expressed concern that board members
must develop regulations to regulate businesses but if they lack
the expertise to do so, the regulations might not accurately
protect public health and safety.
VICE CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that Alaska is the
only state with two industry people serving on the alcoholic
beverage control board since most states do not have any
industry participation, with the exception of one state having
one industry board member. She asked for confirmation of this.
3:30:05 PM
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, Executive Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board (ABC Board), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED), acknowledged that it was true that Alaska's
board is unique; however, the way in which different states
regulate alcohol is quite varied. Fifteen states are control
states, in which the states sell the alcohol so one could argue
the entire board is in the industry. A few other states have
"all-volunteer" boards similar to Alaska's board. The way this
bill was written, up to two members could be employed by
industry; however, there isn't any requirement for industry
representation, just a limit on the total number of people that
can have that industry connection, she said. If there were
fewer than two industry people, these members would be replaced
with general public members. Since one board member will serve
a one-year term, the boards and commissions office could address
Representative Kito's concern that industry has not yet been
established by appointing someone who has been advocating on
behalf of the industry to serve a "bridge" industry member into
the one-year seat. The seat could later be filled once an
industry person was identified, she said.
3:32:50 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked whether other states who have a
marijuana industry have board compositions similar to what is
being proposed in HB 123.
MS. FRANKLIN answered that Colorado does not have a board, but
has a Division of Marijuana Enforcement within its Department of
Revenue comprised of state employees. The Washington State
Liquor Control Board regulates marijuana, but it doesn't
regulate liquor, although the state was initially a control
state until the state privatized the industry and dismantled the
board's regulatory authority over alcohol several years ago.
She elaborated that Washington's board members are state
employees who conduct three board meetings per week, and Oregon
is a control state, with state employee [commission] members,
without any local option with respect to marijuana. The Oregon
initiative gave control to its Oregon Liquor Control
[Commission] without an option for the legislature to create a
separate board. She was unsure whether the [commission] would
be expanded to handle the added function.
3:35:10 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES directed attention to the public health law
enforcement provision in the bill and the director's background.
She related her understanding that something similar was
proposed in the Title 4 revisions and asked whether this bill
was based on those revisions.
MS. FRANKLIN said that was correct; that it represented a
carefully-crafted compromise in the role of the ABC Board
subcommittee to the Title 4 [alcoholic beverages] stakeholders'
revisions. She explained that public health representatives on
the stakeholder's group wanted to see the ABC Board more evenly
balanced with less industry focus. However, significant
resistance from many stakeholders arose in terms of expanding
the board. First, it often has been difficult to schedule
meetings for the five-member all volunteer ABC Board. She
described the ABC Board meetings as consisting of heavy working
meetings with significant tasks to be accomplished. The
compromise reached was that the director's background would be
taken into account when balancing the board out since it was
perceived that the director has quite a bit of influence. For
instance, if a member of the liquor industry had been appointed
as the agency director one of the liquor industry seats would be
replaced by a public member; similarly, if the director had a
public health background or a public safety background, she
said, even though the director does not vote, the director's
background is considered when balancing out the board.
3:37:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO referred to page 2, lines 15-21, to
subsection (c) of HB 123 related to the Marijuana Control Board
(MCB) appointment and qualifications, which read, "Of the board
members and the director, one person shall be from the public
safety sector, one person shall be from the public health
sector, one person shall be from a rural area, and not more than
two people may be actively engaged in the marijuana industry;
the remaining person or persons shall be from the general
public." He said this language seemed to imply two board
members would be selected from the marijuana industry, but not
more than two could serve. He maintained his concern that an
advocate for the legalization of marijuana could serve during
the start-up phase when regulations will be developed for
commerce or business aspects since this language doesn't require
anyone with business experience. This could be very important
for the state especially in the first term, when licensing
requirements and regulations governing businesses will be
established, he said.
MS. FRANKLIN replied that the distinction is the choice of the
language "shall" and "may." Thus, the language requires that
one person "shall" be from the public health sector and one
person "shall" be from a rural area, but and not more than two
people "may" be actively engaged in the marijuana industry. She
interpreted this language to provide flexibility in terms of
potential board members who are engaged in the marijuana
industry. She suggested that the governor could appoint a
business person not engaged in the marijuana industry to serve
on the board since it may be impossible to find appropriate
candidates for the emerging industry. She agreed it will be
challenging since the proposed AS 17.38 seems to set up numerous
"chicken and egg" scenarios. She reported that significant
interest has been expressed by a number of people who would like
to serve on the proposed Marijuana Control Board (MCB).
3:40:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO directed attention to the proposed MCB board
composition. He said that three seats were designated,
including the public safety sector, public health sector, and
the rural area, with two available seats remaining for those
actively engaged in the marijuana industry. He envisioned a
circumstance could arise in which two members were engaged in
marijuana industry, without a spot for the public member. He
expressed concern that the board may not have a public member
designee.
VICE CHAIR HUGHES pointed out that subsection (c) of HB 123
includes the director so the proposed board membership is five
plus one, which totals six. She related her understanding that
the board membership for industry reads "may" and the "public"
reads "shall," so one person must serve from the public sector.
MS. FRANKLIN discussed the proposed Marijuana Control Board
(MCB) membership. The background of six people would be
considered as board members, including considering the
director's background. If the director's background was any of
the three designations - public health, public safety, or
industry - the seat on the board would be filled by a member of
the general public. She said that the rural member would be a
public member from a rural area. The only situation that could
arise, in terms of Representative Kito's concern, would be if
the director's background was not any of the three
aforementioned designations. Thus if the director was not from
public health, public safety, or industry, and two marijuana
representatives were selected, the only public member in that
case would be the rural public member.
MS. FRANKLIN assured members that the proposed Marijuana Control
Board (MCB) composition was crafted after months of input and
numerous controversial meetings deliberating over what a board
regulating [marijuana] should look like. She stated that
stakeholder's participation included representatives from public
health, public safety, the general public, and members the
alcohol industry crafted this compromise with the goal of
keeping the board small enough to be workable. She said that if
the legislature were to create a larger board or expand the
proposed board, it will be important to consider whether the
board will be able reach a majority vote and not be tied.
3:44:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO asked whether the director in question would
be the state employee who serves as the executive director of
the proposed Marijuana Control Board (MCB). He further asked
whether the person would have voting rights.
MS. FRANKLIN answered yes; the director would serve as the
executive director of the Marijuana Control Board (MCB), but the
position does not have any voting rights. She reiterated that
the executive director's background would be considered in terms
of board composition. The alcohol industry, the public health
and public safety members of the stakeholder's group all
expressed strong opinion that the background of the director of
a volunteer board that meets five times per year was very
important since the director will be very influential in the
day-to-day operations of the agency. Further, the ABC Board
chair indicated that the background of the director matters as
much as board members' backgrounds, since so much of the work
will be performed outside board meetings - such as approvals and
transfers. She offered that proposed Title 4 revisions and HB
123 contain substantial delegation to the director.
3:46:29 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked to focus on the rural member for the
proposed Marijuana Control Board (MCB). She asked whether
subsection (f) was fashioned on rural membership for other
boards since it requires the board member to have resided in a
rural area for not fewer than 180 days within the five years.
She said she was also curious whether the 6,000 population
figure is used throughout statute in terms of identifying rural
areas.
MS. FRANKLIN answered that the language in this bill related to
the size of the community for the rural public member is
identical to the language in the proposed Title 4 revisions, but
she was unsure whether this language was used to define a rural
public member on other boards. She explained that the "180
days" language came out of the proposed Title 4 revisions. The
composition of the proposed MCB is different than the ABC Board
since the ABC Board does not specify public health or public
safety designees, just industry designees. She said that the
"180 days" language was developed when the Title 4 [AS 04]
revisions were made, since it could help ascertain whether
someone has a rural background, for example, someone who
previously resided in rural Alaska would not qualify. This
rural member language was also included in the draft Title 4
revisions to the ABC Board membership. The under 6,000
population language exists in Title 4 has been used for many
years to help determine a rural public member, she added.
VICE CHAIR HUGHES expressed concern that a town in the Kenai
Peninsula or in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley that is under 6,000
probably wouldn't be the type of rural participation that should
be considered for the MCB.
3:50:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX gathered that the idea for including the
background for the director came from the current ABC Board.
MS. FRANKLIN answered that the Title 4 stakeholders group, a
group of 60-70 stakeholders considered revisions to Title 4
assigned a subcommittee to review the role of the ABC Board and
that group primarily reviewed the composition of the board, in
part, due to the sense that the ABC Board has been listing to
the industry side. She commented that she just became director
September 2014 and while she was not party to the discussions,
she understood that the alcohol industry fought very hard
against losing any designations or expanding the designations.
As previously mentioned, this compromise was agreed upon by the
Title 4 review committee, and by Jess Jessee, Director, Mental
Health Trust and Bob Klein, the current chair of the ABC Board,
who specifically worked on this compromise together as a means
to balance the industry interest without having to numerically
expand the board.
3:53:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to AS 04.06.020, to the
qualifications of the ABC Board, which doesn't seem to consider
the background of the ABC Board director.
MS. FOWLER answered that these provisions were part of the draft
rewrite of Title 4, but that language is not in current statute.
She offered to provide the committee with the recommendations.
3:54:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to page 4, to subsection (c),
of HB 123 to the language that reduces the area to be designated
as the licensed premises.
MS. FOWLER answered that subsection (c) mirrors the proposed
Title 4 language.
MS. FRANKLIN explained that the way alcohol is licensed includes
a diagram of the premise, which means the ABC Board wants to
know where on the premise of any business that substance will be
contained. She related a scenario in which a licensee applied
for a beer and wine license, but submitted a diagram that
required a server to cross a public sidewalk to reach a separate
patio. The language in subsection (c) gave the ABC Board the
authority to allow the specific establishment to serve beer and
wine in its restaurant, but it also allowed the board to excise
off the part of the designated premises for the patio since it
required servers to cross a public area. This language would
give the board the authority to reduce the premise without
throwing out the application.
3:57:16 PM
CHRISTOPHER M. KENNEDY, Deputy Chief - Administrative Law Judge,
Office of Administration Hearings (OAH), said he was available
for questions.
3:57:48 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked for a brief review of the fiscal note.
MR. KENNEDY answered that the fiscal note was a standard formula
fiscal note that the OAH would submit any time a new board was
established if it was likely the board would send case work to
the Office of Administrative Hearings on disciplinary cases or
when for administrative hearings resulting from license denials.
The legislative drafters indicated it was the intent for
hearings to be referred to OAH, which is in keeping with what
currently occurs with the ABC Board. The projected costs for
hearings for the MCB were based on the current need by the ABC
Board for hearings; however, he has since understood that there
might be a surge in hearings in the early part of the Marijuana
Control Board (MCB) as people may litigate more vigorously over
licensure and as licensees try to figure out the "lay of the
land" in regulation. He suggested that the OAH fiscal note was
probably a fairly conservative fiscal note for FY 16 and FY 17.
3:59:48 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the OAH plans to revise the
fiscal note to reflect the surge.
MR. KENNEDY answered that the OAH probably should consider
whether to revise it slightly upward, although he did not
anticipate that the fiscal note changes would be dramatic. He
said the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) will want to
consider a potential surge; however, he acknowledged it may be
difficult to project. In response to Representative Josephson,
he clarified that the vast majority of board and commission
hearings are conducted by the OAH; however, in this instance the
OAH confirmed with the legislative drafter the intent was to
have any appeals heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH).
4:01:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to page 4, lines 19-21
paragraph (4), of HB 123 which states that the board would hear
appeals. He asked whether the OAH would accept the board's
facts or how does that work.
MR. KENNEDY answered that the voluntary boards do not normally
hear any evidence first hand. He explained the hearing process,
such that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has a
statutory procedure for hearing cases on behalf of boards and
commissions, in which the evidence is presented and subsequently
findings and conclusions are submitted as a proposal to the
board. The board then would deliberate with the OAH, he said.
4:02:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether this bill would give the
board appellate authority.
MR. KENNEDY answered that he was aware of the language, which is
the same as the ABC Board, such that it gives the board the
authority to hear the appeal; however, the board refers those
hearings to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH to
conduct the hearing, but the board makes the final decision. He
characterized his office as being the hearing arm of the
Marijuana Control Board (MCB), followed by an appeal to the
court system, in terms of the bill's structure.
4:03:37 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board), Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) fiscal note
of $1.574 million to establish the Marijuana Control Board
(MCB). She was unsure how those funds would be used.
MS. FRANKLIN related her understanding that the budget did not
survive the House Finance Committee process. She explained that
the figure for FY 16 budget represents 4 additional staff be
added in addition to the current 10 statewide staff to regulate
alcohol. The DCCED has asked for 2 additional staff in the
supplemental budget since work has already begun. She explained
that the funding covered travel costs for enforcement officers
to check on licensees, as well as $500,000 for a database since
the ABC Board currently operates as a paper-based agency. Other
states that have legalized marijuana have had a constant demand
for data. Further, public safety tracks marijuana sold in
commercial marijuana establishments to ensure the product was
grown in legal establishments, which also requires electronic
support. She characterized the proposed software as seed-to-
sale software, which allows marijuana tracking to occur to
ensure that black market marijuana is not funneled into the
distribution facilities. She noted that it is all broken out in
the governor's budget.
4:06:42 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that this
fiscal note was removed in the House Finance Committee.
MS. FOWLER said that the funding was removed in the House
Finance Committee and the department was asked to submit the
request in fiscal notes.
4:07:15 PM
VICE CHAIR HUGHES asked for clarification on the number of
employees proposed for the MCB Board.
MS. FRANKLIN answered that 2 additional employees were added in
the FY 15 supplemental budget request that has not yet been
approved, with 4 additional employees requested in the FY 16
budget request. In response to Vice Chair Hughes, she said that
the ABC Board has 10 employees statewide, including 3 licensing
employees, 5 enforcement officers, and 2 administrative staff.
She stated that an additional 2 staff were requested in the
supplemental budget, and an additional 4 staff were requested in
the fiscal note [dated 1/20/15]. She said if all the budgets
were passed, it would bring the number of statewide staff
working on the ABC Board and the Marijuana Control Board (MCB)
to a grand total of 16 employees.
VICE CHAIR HUGHES remarked that it would be helpful to have the
electronic means for tracking marijuana listed in the narrative
for the fiscal note.
4:08:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX directed attention to the fiscal note to
$610.5 thousand for personnel services. She asked for
information on the $756.4 thousand for services, asked whether
that covers the database, and if so, what the additional $250
thousand would be used for.
MS. FRANKLIN answered yes; that the $500 thousand for the
database is contained in services; however, she did not have the
full breakout of the budget in front of her. She offered to
provide it to the committee.
4:09:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for further clarification on the
line item for capital outlay, which it seemed is where the
database costs would be listed. She further asked why there
were not any costs listed in the out years of FY 17-FY 21.
MS. FOWLER answered that part of the commodities line item
funding would be to purchase computers, desks, and vehicles for
enforcement officers. Since the costs for the Marijuana Control
Board (MCB) were included in the governor's budget, the costs
were not reflected in the FY 17-21 budget request; however, if
there had been an appropriation, the costs would have been
reflected in the out years. She explained that if the funding
for marijuana is not put back in the budget, the department will
revise the fiscal note to include it in the FY 16 appropriation
requested column and at that point it would show up in the out
years.
4:11:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that she would like to the see the
projections for the bill listed in the fiscal note.
MS. FOWLER explained that one reason the fiscal note was
prepared in this format was to reflect the costs of the
initiative, since it was not possible to attach a fiscal note to
the initiative when it was passed. She understood the request,
and offered her belief that the committee will receive an
updated fiscal note.
VICE CHAIR HUGHES added that it would be helpful for the
committee to know how much of the $1.575 million represents one-
time costs.
4:12:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked if this bill does not pass
whether the regulation of marijuana would be handled by the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board); however, if so,
the board would not have any financial resources to do so. He
wondered how to remedy the funding issue.
MS. FOWLER reported that the fiscal notes for all the marijuana
bills were currently being amended to include costs for
implementation, noting that clearly funding will only be needed
for one of the bills. She said that was one reason the
department initially asked for funding in the proposed budget;
however, the department understands the need for the fiscal note
as requested by the House Finance Committee.
[HB 123 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB123 ver A.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Fiscal Note-DCCED-ABC-02-20-15 .pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Fiscal Note-DOA-OAH-02-27-15.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| HB123 Draft Proposed Amendment-Josephson 3-3-15.pdf |
HL&C 3/4/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 123 |