Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
02/26/2024 06:00 PM House WAYS & MEANS
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 | |
| HB142|| HB156 | |
| HB142 | |
| HB156 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 142-STATE SALES AND USE TAX
HB 156-INCOME TAX
6:07:41 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to a state sales and use
tax; authorizing the Department of Revenue to enter into the
Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement; and providing for an
effective date." and HOUSE BILL NO. 156, "An Act relating to the
taxation of income of individuals, partners, shareholders in S
corporations, trusts, and estates; repealing tax credits applied
against the tax on individuals under the Alaska Net Income Tax
Act; and providing for an effective date."
6:07:56 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER opened public testimony on HB 142 and HB 156.
6:08:29 PM
PATRICK RACE, representing self, gave a brief history of Ernest
Gruening, Alaska's territorial governor in 1939, and Gruening's
efforts to establish a revenue system from taxes rather than
depending on revenue from resources that allow outside interests
to control lawmakers. He said history shows the essentiality of
taxes. He opined that Alaskans should reinstate an income tax.
6:10:51 PM
KRISTEEN F. PETERSON, representing self, said she supports an
income tax. She recalled paying income tax when she was 14.
She indicated that she would like everyone to be paying it, with
any exceptions decided by the legislature. She urged the
committee to "get it done this year."
6:12:52 PM
CINDY GILDER, representing self, testified in support of an
income tax, stating that a broad-based income tax is the fairest
and would ensure needed services are paid for.
MARY ODDEN, representing self, shared she and her husband paid
an income tax and school tax when they first came to Alaska in
the '70s and thought it "a good thing to do." She opined it is
fairer than a sales tax. She warned against looking to the
permanent fund to cover state expenses. She spoke about the
negative effects of an unstable income for Alaska. She allowed
there could be discussion regarding the proposed $200,000 income
level, and she spoke about making a ceiling and a progressive
tax - whatever is necessary. She encouraged the committee to
support HB 156.
6:16:08 PM
ALEX WERTHEIMER, representing self, stated support for an income
tax as part of a long-term fiscal plan for Alaska. He said the
income tax is more equitable than is a statewide sales tax,
which would disproportionally affect lower income households.
He noted other states require income tax paid and are doing well
economically. Notwithstanding that, he said he does not think
the 2 percent flat tax on higher income is "the way to go." He
mentioned a plan from the Walker Administration where people
would pay a small percentage of their federal tax assessment,
and the state would receive revenue from non-resident workers
who benefit from the infrastructure and services that make their
jobs possible.
6:17:37 PM
PAULA DAVIS, representing self, testified in support of HB 156.
She said she would like to see Alaska's income tax reinstated
because oil revenue is diminishing, Alaskans should pay for the
services they get, sales tax hits the poor more than the rich,
the 2 percent for those making more than $200,000 is fair, the
$20 is fair, and she does not like to be bribed by a large
permanent fund dividend (PFD). She opined that those who live
out of state and work on the North Slope two weeks on/two weeks
off should pay into the state's system. She said, "We'd hate to
be running out of money just because we don't want to tax
ourselves."
6:19:21 PM
MARGIE GOODRICH, representing self, testified in support of an
income tax. A lifelong Alaskan, she recalled the former income
tax being stopped and stated support for having an income tax.
She added that she thinks it should be [based on] $100,000
rather than $200,000, and she echoed that those with lower
income could not afford to pay as much tax as those with higher
income. She said those from out of state who work in Alaska
should contribute to the state's economy. She added that she
thinks an income tax would help to improve the state's education
system, which has declined over the years.
6:22:10 PM
LORI PICKETT, representing self, testified in support of HB 156.
She stated her belief that implementing an income tax is
imperative to the wellbeing of Alaska. She called HB 156
reasonable and said every wage earner has "buy-in." She talked
about the benefits of a state income tax to provide a stable
source of revenue for essential public services and
infrastructure, enhance economic stability and attract business,
cultivate a skilled workforce, and support education.
6:24:30 PM
PAUL SEATON, representing self, stated his support of HB 156 and
said revenue is needed to balance the state's essential
expenditures. He offered his understanding that [HB 156] is the
first real consideration [of an income tax] since the House
passed what would have been the fourth-lowest income tax in the
nation, as part of a long-term fiscal plan back in 2015. He
said he is pleased HB 156 proposes a 2 percent tax on S-
corporations because those that are involved in oil are avoiding
the corporate income tax.
6:26:05 PM
JOEL SALVINO, representing self, emphasized his four-year
residency in Alaska and being 33 and in the prime earning years
of life. He talked about his family, business, farm, and
choices for being in Alaska. He repeatedly emphasized the aging
membership of the legislature and questioned why they have
reaped success only to "pull the ladder out" from behind them
for the next generation. He urged the committee not to "burden
us with new taxes that you never faced." He emphasized his hard
work and opined that taxing his income is "stealing the most
valuable resource in the world." He requested a line-item
budget showing the need for more money.
6:29:10 PM
KEVIN BANKS, representing self, testified in support of HB 156.
He observed that a single-source revenue from the oil industry
is problematic, in that citizens of Alaska have enjoyed the
services of government without participating in it and have
acquired a sense of entitlement to the services provided by the
state, such as roads and education. He posited that "that
contribution" [of income tax] would give Alaskans a stake in
what is happening in government. He said he would favor an
income tax over a sales tax for reasons many previous testifiers
have already stated; a sales tax "has no consideration for the
situation faced by an individual taxpayer." He remarked on the
irony that while HB 156 proposes an income tax, another bill on
the docket proposes to reduce corporate income taxes.
6:31:41 PM
KATHY MORGAN, representing self, testified in support of HB 156.
She opined that Alaska needs to come up with more revenue to
support state services; it cannot continue spending more than it
earns and cutting state services more than they have already
been cut. She said she does not think the proposed income tax
under HB 156 goes far enough; she suggested taxing all income
over $100,000 earned in Alaska and increasing the annual head
tax to $200 per earner. She talked about being retired and in
the past paying a state income tax and a state disaster tax.
She proffered that for many Alaskans the head tax would be "more
than balanced by the PFD" and would help the permanent fund from
being depleted by state government. She said a statewide sales
tax would create disproportionate effects on Alaskans, while an
income tax would impose more of the burden on those who can
afford it.
6:35:11 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER, after ascertaining there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 142 and HB 156.
HB 142-STATE SALES AND USE TAX
6:36:07 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to a state sales and use
tax; authorizing the Department of Revenue to enter into the
Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement; and providing for an
effective date."
6:36:31 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:36 p.m. to 6:37 p.m.
6:37:00 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced the committee would entertain
amendments.
CHAIR CARPENTER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 142, labeled
33-LS0433\B.2, Nauman, 2/21/24, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "a resale"
Insert "an"
Page 5, lines 16 - 21:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 6, line 8:
Delete "Resale Exemption"
Insert "Exemption Certificate"
Page 7, lines 5 - 8:
Delete "Sales for resale are exempt from the tax
under this chapter. A person making a sale for resale
must have an exemption certificate issued under
AS 43.44.100 and must present the certificate at the
time of the sale for resale."
Insert "A sale for resale and the cost of
transportation associated with a sale for resale are
exempt from the tax under this chapter if the resale
is subject to the tax imposed under AS 43.44.010(a)
and made in the ordinary course of business of the
reseller."
Page 7, lines 11 - 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 43.44.100. Exemption certificate. (a) The
department shall issue an exemption certificate to a
person that
(1) has obtained a seller's permit under
AS 43.44.080; or
(2) regularly makes purchases that qualify
for an exemption under AS 43.44.060.
(b) An exemption certificate issued under (a) of
this section
(1) must include
(A) the name and address of the person; and
(B) the signature or electronic signature
of the person;
(2) must be issued by the department in
both paper and electronic form;
(3) does not expire; and
(4) must be presented at the time of the
sale unless the seller has a copy of the purchaser's
exemption certificate on file.
(c) In addition to the requirements of (b)(1) of
this section, an exemption certificate issued under
(a)(1) of this section must include
(1) the number of the seller's permit
issued to the person under AS 43.44.080;
(2) the general character of property or
service sold by the person in the regular course of
business."
Page 7, line 22:
Delete "resale"
Page 7, line 24:
Delete the first occurrence of "resale"
Page 7, lines 24 - 25:
Delete "the seller's permit and resale exemption
certificate"
Page 7, line 27:
Delete "resale"
Page 7, line 29:
Delete "resale"
Page 7, line 30:
Delete "resale"
Page 8, line 5:
Delete "resale"
Page 8, line 6:
Delete "a resale"
Insert "an"
Page 8, line 9:
Delete "the resale"
Insert "an"
Page 8, line 12:
Delete "resale"
Page 8, line 13:
Delete "a resale"
Insert "an"
Page 8, lines 14 - 15:
Delete "a resale"
Insert "the"
Page 8, line 17:
Delete "resale"
Page 8, line 19:
Delete "resale"
Page 15, line 13:
Delete "a resale"
Insert "an"
6:37:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
6:37:36 PM
DONNA ARDUIN, Staff, Representative Ben Carpenter, Alaska State
Legislature, explained Amendment 1 would replace "resale
exemption", which is already in HB 142, with a more specific
exemption certificate. That certificate is recognized around
the country through the [Streamlined Sales and Use Tax
Agreement] which allows for transactions within the state or
through other states to only be taxed once. For example, an
Alaska retailer could give the certificate to the businesses
that it does business with for sourcing, distributing,
warehousing, or transporting things in other states and the sale
is only taxed once at the place of delivery, not all the places
along the way.
6:38:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH inquired about the [estimated] fiscal impact
of [Amendment 1].
MS. ARDUIN replied that the fiscal note for the entire bill is
about $1.2 billion a year in revenue, but she doesn't have a
fiscal note for this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH stated that an exemption would reduce
revenue, and he would like to know the estimated effect of this
exemption.
6:39:46 PM
ALEXI PAINTER, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division, Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, Alaska State
Legislature, responded that he does not know the answer to
Representative Groh's question.
6:39:57 PM
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue (DOR), offered to check whether any additional cost
would be associated with the exemption certificate since a
fiscal note hasn't been done on an exemption. He offered his
understanding that this is clarifying language. The exemption
certificate is a common industry term and is used by other
states to identify sales for resale as exempt so business inputs
for a business process aren't taxed.
CHAIR CARPENTER asked whether DOR's fiscal note already covers
the impact for the exemption certificate given the exemption
certificate is already a part of the bill.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that that is his understanding. He said
DOR will provide clarification for the record.
6:41:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that in his experience financial
analysis of fiscal notes isn't typically done for amendments.
He observed that the bill's assumption of sales is based on
gross sales.
CHAIR CARPENTER confirmed that the bill already has that concept
in it, but said it's a legitimate question to check that the
analysis done prior to Amendment 1 doesn't change with the
amendment.
MR. WILLIAMS stated that DOR will confirm whether the amendment
changes [the previous analysis].
6:42:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
6:43:12 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 142, labeled
33-LS0433\B.4, Nauman, 2/22/24, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 11, following "timing":
Insert ", location application"
Page 3, following line 15:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) The tax under AS 43.44.010 is applied at
the point of delivery. Except as otherwise provided in
this subsection, the point of delivery is the location
where property is delivered or a service is performed.
If a purchaser does not receive or pay for property at
the business location of the seller, the point of
delivery is the location where the purchaser receives
the property. If a purchaser is physically present at
the business location of the seller and pays for
property, the point of delivery is the location where
the purchaser paid for the property, even if the
property is delivered to another location. If a
purchaser does not receive a service at the business
location of a seller, the point of delivery is the
location where the purchaser receives the service. If
property or a service is transferred electronically to
a purchaser or if the seller does not have a delivery
location for the purchaser, the point of delivery is
the billing address of the purchaser. A person
temporarily possessing property for the purpose of
shipping that property is not considered to have
received the property. In this subsection,
(1) "receive" means
(A) to take possession of property that is
not a digital good;
(B) to first make use of a service;
(C) to take possession or first make use of
a digital good, whichever comes first."
Page 6, line 9:
Delete "A"
Insert "(a) Except as provided in (b) of this
section, a"
Page 6, line 11:
Delete "full credit for"
Insert "credit for an amount not to exceed"
Page 6, following line 12:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) A purchaser may not receive a credit under (a)
of this section unless the state to which the sales or
use tax is paid allows a purchaser to take a credit
that is substantially similar to the credit in (a) of
this section for sales or use tax paid in this state."
6:43:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
6:43:32 PM
MS. ARDUIN explained that in sales, the term "sourcing" says the
revenue is sourced either at the point of sale or the point of
delivery. Amendment 3 makes it clear it is delivery. So, when
someone is in Alaska and buys something in Alaska, the sales tax
is remitted to the State of Alaska. When someone in another
state buys online and has the item delivered to Alaska, the
sales tax is due to the State of Alaska. When an Alaskan goes
to Seattle and purchases an item at a retail outlet there, the
sales tax goes to the State of Washington.
6:44:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD requested clarification on whether this
tax would be added when someone orders online from Amazon.
CHAIR CARPENTER replied yes, this is a sales tax proposition.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD related that when she orders something
from Amazon and has it delivered to Juneau it is taxed, but when
she has it delivered to Eagle River no tax is added. She asked
whether [HB 142] would add a tax.
CHAIR CARPENTER responded that this is a proposition for a sales
tax.
6:45:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE removed his objection to Amendment 3.
6:45:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected to Amendment 3.
6:45:35 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Groh, Gray, and
Carpenter voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives
Allard, McKay, McCabe, and Tilton voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed to be adopted by a vote of 3-4.
6:46:21 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 142, labeled
33-LS0433\B.3, Nauman, 2/21/24, which read as follows:
Page 15, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. Sections 1 - 5 of this Act
take effect only if the legislature passes, before
July 1, 2024, a resolution proposing an amendment to
art. IX, sec. 16, Constitution of the State of Alaska,
relating to the appropriation limit."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 15, line 16:
Delete "Section 5 of this Act"
Insert "If sec. 5 of this Act takes effect, it"
Page 15, following line 16:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. Section 6 of this Act takes effect
immediately under AS 01.10.070(c)."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 15, line 17:
Delete "Except as provided in sec. 6 of this Act,
this Act takes"
Insert "If secs. 1 - 4 of this Act take effect, they
take"
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
6:46:28 PM
MS. ARDUIN explained Amendment 2 would provide a conditional
effect to this Act that the Act shall take effect only if the
legislature passes before 7/1/24 a resolution proposing an
amendment to Article IX, Section 16, of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to the appropriation limit. This
means, she continued, that the sales tax will only take effect
if the legislature puts on a ballot before the voters a
constitutional spending limit.
6:47:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked the amendment's sponsor to elaborate
on his thinking.
CHAIR CARPENTER answered that his thinking on attaching a
constitutional spending limit to a revenue generating measure is
that he doesn't want to generate revenue without some fiscal
discipline and constraint on the growth of government. A
constitutional spending limit is the only way the legislature
would recognize that a spending limit is necessary to constrain
the growth of government. He noted that Amendment 2 doesn't
specify which specific spending limit would be applied here.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH related that he has introduced HJR 23 which
would amend the provision of the constitution addressing the
spending limit or spending cap to come up with a tighter
spending limit. He offered his appreciation for the chair's
thinking on this.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY questioned the constitutionality of making
a law contingent on another law. He noted it is conditional on
the legislature passing the resolution proposing an amendment to
the constitution relating to an appropriation limit that would
have to be voted on by the people.
CHAIR CARPENTER replied that Amendment 2 was drafted at his
request by Legislative Legal and Research Services and he didn't
receive feedback that his request was unconstitutional.
6:50:58 PM
MS. ARDUIN clarified that this conditional effect requires the
resolution to pass the legislature and be put before voters, it
doesn't require the voters to pass it.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE recalled that the tying together of these
two pieces [as proposed] in this amendment was discussed two or
three years ago by the Fiscal Policy Working Group.
CHAIR CARPENTER thanked Representative McCabe for the history of
getting here. He responded that some legislators wanted to tie
a spending measure and a spending limit measure together but he
doesn't know that that would be the recommendation of the Fiscal
Policy Working Group other than there was a set of measures that
needed to be taken in totality as far as a fiscal plan is
considered, although some members might not have agreed that
these are the two bills that should be tied together.
6:52:51 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:52 p.m. to 6:55 p.m.
6:55:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY addressed Amendment 3 which failed to be
adopted. He said his understanding had Amendment 3 passed, was
that if someone ordered something online from Amazon and it was
delivered to Alaska, then a sales tax would be paid and would go
to the State of Alaska. However, because Amendment 3 failed, no
taxes would be paid for items ordered online from Amazon, but
sales tax would have to be paid on things purchased at a store.
He expressed his fear that because of this Alaskans will order
online from Amazon and Alaskan stores will go out of business.
6:56:17 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER noted the committee is currently considering
Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH stated he is in favor of the individual
recommendations for comprehensive fiscal policy that includes
spending limit reform, major new revenues, and other actions
related to the permanent fund dividend (PFD). He expressed his
concern, however, that [Amendment 2] could result in implying
that the legislature can only raise revenues if it puts forward
a constitutional spending cap. He said he appreciates the
discussion but is resistant to the idea of tying these things
together as a matter of law to make it effective.
6:58:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE removed his objection to Amendment 2.
6:58:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH objected to Amendment 2.
6:58:47 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tilton, Allard,
McKay, McCabe, and Carpenter voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Gray and Groh voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
CHAIR CARPENTER noted that Amendment 4 would not be [offered].
6:59:34 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER moved to adopt Amendment 5 to HB 142, labeled
33-LS0433\B.6, Nauman, 2/26/24, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 27:
Delete "July 1, 2022"
Insert "January 1, 2025"
Page 15, line 17:
Delete "2025"
Insert "2026"
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
6:59:45 PM
MS. ARDUIN explained Amendment 5 would change the effective date
of the Act by moving it forward to 1/1/2026 given the bill was
offered in [2023] and the Department of Revenue will need a year
to implement it.
7:00:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
7:00:29 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that there are no other amendments and
that [HB 142, as amended,] is now before the committee.
7:00:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY stated he made a mistake by thinking the
committee was considering the sales tax put forth last year in
HB 109 and that he had amendments for that bill but did not meet
the deadline for amendments to HB 142, so he will be offering
them at later.
7:01:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH stated that he made the same mistake as
Representative Gray and will be offering his amendments later,
as well.
7:01:40 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER extended the amendment deadline to close of
business on 2/28/24 for HB 142.
7:02:31 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced HB 142 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0142A.PDF |
HW&M 3/29/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 142 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HW&M 3/29/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 142 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HW&M 3/29/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB0156A.PDF |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156-Section Analysis.pdf |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156-Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| 2021_Fiscal_Policy_Working_Group-Final_Rep.pdf |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| ITEP Alaska Fiscal Solutions 4.10.21.pdf |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| ITEP_Alaska-Distribution-Analysis-2020.pdf |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| Matthew Berman_ADN_2023April.pdf |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| Revenue Forecast 2023.pdf |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| Telling_The_Story_Of_Taxes_In_Alaska.pdf |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156-Initial Presentation-Final2 4-17-23.pdf |
HW&M 4/17/2023 6:00:00 PM HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| HB142-DOR-TAX-02-23-24 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB156-DOR-TAX-02-23-24 Fiscal note.pdf |
HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| Amendments 1-4.pdf |
HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 142 Amendments 1-4.pdf |
HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 156 Public Testimony 2.26.2024.pdf |
HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 156 |
| HB 142 Public Testimony on 2.26.2024.pdf |
HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |
| HB 142 Amendment 5.pdf |
HW&M 2/26/2024 6:00:00 PM |
HB 142 |