Legislature(2021 - 2022)
05/04/2021 05:30 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 | |
| HB189 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 189-EMPLOYMENT TAX FOR EDUCATION
5:34:41 PMIME
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 189, "An Act imposing an education tax on net
earnings from self-employment and wages; relating to the
administration and enforcement of the education tax; and
providing for an effective date."
5:34:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 189, labeled 32-LS0753\G, Nauman,
4/28/21, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version G was before the committee.
5:35:01 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained that HB 189 would establish an
education payroll tax, which is modeled on a 2017 Senate bill
that was designed to address school construction. The major
change in the current legislation is that funds would be
designated to the Public Education Fund rather than school
construction, as Article 7, Section 1, of the Alaska
Constitution requires a system of public schools to be
established and maintained. The bill seeks to raise a small
portion of overall funding needed to meet this constitutional
obligation, she said. She further noted that in 1919, Alaska
enacted some form of an education tax, and that some form of an
education tax remained in place until 1980. She reported that
the payroll tax would be a small revenue measure that is
estimated to generate between $65 million and $66 million
annually. She continued to relay that 20 percent of those
paying the tax would be nonresident workers. She reiterated
that the legislation would serve as a modest part of a fiscal
plan. She invited questions from the committee.
5:37:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about sequence of the proposed tax
implementation on nonresidents. She asked when the tax on
nonresidents kick in.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ responded that the bill would allow the
deductions to be made from nonresidents' first and second checks
in the calendar year. She noted that a forthcoming amendment
would propose changing that to a later timeframe.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked Ms. Glover to review the fiscal note and
the costs associated with implementation.
5:39:09 PM
COLLEEN GLOVER, Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue,
explained that as with all tax programs, this new tax would be
programmed into the Tax Revenue Management system, which would
require capital cost. She noted that the proposed tax is simple
for a broad-based tax, adding that once in the system, it would
be automated. She reported that the tax would generate
approximately $65 million annually, assuming 480,000 individuals
would contribute either through their employers or the self-
employment portal. Additionally, she stated that if DOR were
administering the program, the department would have the
advantage of being able to acquire information from the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), as well as confidential taxpayer
information pertaining to returns for the purposes of auditing
and cross-checking information. She believed that one of the
biggest challenges would be identifying the self-employed and
nonresidents and getting them to pay the tax, for which DOR's
relationship with the IRS would be helpful.
5:42:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX, referring to the fiscal note, shared his
understanding that it would cost $632,000 to set up the program
and $570,000 annually to run it thereafter. He opined that the
cost seemed high and asked for the reasoning.
MS. GLOVER acknowledged that the ongoing cost for administering
the program would account for five positions: program
supervisor, several tax technicians, accountant, and an auditor.
She noted that the cost would be small compared to other
existing tax programs. She explained that despite the automated
software, the program would still require people to handle the
customer service aspects, such as returns and refunds. She
added that the difference between the FY 22 cost and the ongoing
cost is the initial setup for new employees, computers, and
office space.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that five people processing
500,000 workers is the equivalent of 100,000 workers per
processor, which she believed to be efficient.
5:44:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX recalled that Ms. Glover had stated that DOR
has access to individual income tax records. Consequently, he
asked why the employer is identified as the "tax collector"
rather than the state collecting directly from the individuals
themselves.
MS. GLOVER confirmed that DOR has access to IRS tax return
information; however, the department receives that information
6-8 months after the returns have been filed. She added that in
regard to auditing, DOR would be able to assess whether people
had filed.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX surmised that the tax collection would be
delayed by one year. He pointed out that the cost to the
individual businesses is not included in the fiscal note, which
would be substantially more than $570,000, he speculated. He
asked if the cost to employers could be estimated.
MS. GLOVER clarified that the employer would withhold the tax
from the employee and remit that information to the department
via an online portal.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX shared a personal anecdote. He speculated
that the individual employers would spend more time on this than
the state would auditing. He believed that needed to be a
consideration.
5:48:00 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ reminded Representative Prax that fiscal notes
reflect the cost for the State of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX questioned whether the cost for employers
could be determined. He believed it would be a significant
amount.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that the inquiry was outside the
scope of Ms. Glover's work.
5:48:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL directed attention to Section 1, Subsection
(b) of CSHB 189, which listed 5 different salary ranges. He
inquired about the distribution of the 400,000 taxpayers within
those categories.
MS. GLOVER listed the following distribution: approximately
110,000 taxpayers in the first bracket [annual tax of $50],
150,000 in the second bracket [annual tax of $100], 100,000 in
the third bracket [annual tax of $200], 40,000 in the fourth
bracket [annual tax of $300], and 2,000 in the fifth bracket
[annual tax of $500].
5:50:28 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ clarified that the total number of taxpayers is
roughly 500,000, of which 81,000 are nonresidents and 406,000
are residents. She asked whether the distribution provided by
Ms. Glover accounted for residents only.
MS. GLOVER confirmed that the data referred to resident
taxpayers. She explained [the division] had made some
assumptions for the nonresidents and added a multiplier of 20
percent per nonresident. She further noted that the information
pertaining to salary distribution is from 2018 IRS data for
Alaska taxpayers.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether the estimates for nonresidents
were based on the 2018 IRS data as well.
MS. GLOVER said the 20 percent figure was information from the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), which was
applied to the salary brackets.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ sought to confirm that the division had not
estimated how many nonresidents would come in at each income
bracket.
MS. GLOVER confirmed.
5:52:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the department had
contemplated the necessary "regulations" to account for seasonal
employees that have multiple jobs. He cited an example of a
project in Fairbanks that was put on hold causing the work crew
to be laid off, adding that that the workers had planned to earn
$30,000-$40,000. He asked how that situation would have been
accounted for if the workers had paid their head tax on the
first check.
MS. GLOVER responded that there have been discussions about
implementation; however, until legislation is passed, potential
regulations cannot be contemplated.
5:53:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL inquired about individuals with multiple
jobs, asking which employer would be the designated "tax
submitter."
MS. GLOVER offered her understanding that if the employee could
prove that he/she had already paid the tax, the employer would
not have to withhold.
5:54:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX emphasized his belief that the employer
would be held accountable for the tax. He believed it would put
the employer at a disadvantage.
5:55:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether during the onboarding
process, a form could be included that asks whether another
employer is covering the education head tax.
MS. GLOVER said it's a good suggestion. She reiterated that the
implementation process had not been fully vetted. She
emphasized her desire to make it as simple as possible for all
parties.
5:56:34 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ thanked Ms. Glover.
5:56:49 PM
The House Special Committee on Ways and Means meeting was
recessed at 5:57 p.m. to a call of the chair.
7:16:27 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ called the House Special Committee on Ways and
Means back to order. Present at the call back to order were
Representatives Josephson, Schrage, Wool, Story, and Spohnholz.
7:16:52 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opened invited testimony.
7:17:01 PM
ALISON ARIANS, Great Alaska Schools (GAS), shared that GAS is
supportive of the proposed legislation with one caveat. She
noted that GAS is a statewide nonpartisan coalition advocating
for quality public education for every child. She believed that
providing a good education for every child would help ensure a
strong future for Alaska. She recognized that continuing to
rely on current revenue sources to fund Alaska's public schools
is not a sustainable solution. Further, she opined that given
the huge fiscal challenges facing the state, Alaskans need to
pay more for the services they receive. She said she is pleased
that public education may be the first to receive this
sustainable funding. Additionally, she is pleased the bill uses
an income-based tax method rather than a sales tax, as it would
fairly distribute the cost among residents and capture revenue
from nonresidents who work in the state. However, she believed
that the taxes imposed on the two lowest earning brackets are
higher than they should be, which would unfairly burden the
workers who earn the least. Despite the tax increasing as
income increases, she believed the measure was regressive. She
reported that an individual who earned under $20,000 would pay
the government two-tenths of 1 percent of his/her income while
an individual who earned $1 million would pay the government
five-hundredths of one percent of his/her income. She suggested
that wage earners making $20,000 or $50,000 should pay less and
higher earners should pay more. She commended the committee for
working on a solution.
7:19:26 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opened public testimony.
7:19:58 PM
KATHERINE UEI opined that the school districts should go back to
a zero-balance budget from which they account for everything
they need. She believed that schools need to cut their budgets
and work within their means instead of taking more money from
people who are already suffering from the impact of the
pandemic. She emphasized her strong opposition to HB 189.
7:21:49 PM
CRIS EICHENLAUB stated his opposition to the proposed
legislation. He opined that additional tax measures should not
be considered until the $7,000 in unpaid dividends is
distributed. He believed that the revenue that would be
collected from this head tax could be "easily" trimmed off the
budget; further, that Alaskans should not be taxed to fund a
"failing" [education] system. He said that if Alaska ranked
20th in the nation, as opposed to last, he would be more
supportive of the bill. He opined that Alaska's school system
needs to be reformed.
7:24:24 PM
JEREMY UEI shared his opposition to the bill due to Alaska's low
national ranking. He opined that more money should not be put
into the school system if a decent education cannot be provided.
7:25:03 PM
QUEEN PARKER, stated her opposition to the proposed legislation,
adding that she agreed with the statements from previous
testifiers.
7:25:33 PM
ANNIE MASSEY, Director, Alaska Parents' Rights in Education,
shared her opposition to HB 189. She claimed that historical
data "proves" that "more money does not improve education."
Further, she argued that "parents cannot trust that money being
requested will continue to advance a social, sexual, and
political agenda that has no place in public education." She
pointed out that education continues to be funded despite the
state's poor academic outcomes. She opined that if the state
continues to fund education that is not improving, the removal
of parents' rights will continue to persist.
7:28:47 PM
BERT HOUGHTALING stated his opposition to the bill and equated
the proposed tax measure to theft. He reported that, per the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), Alaska is
ranked 52 in the nation. He argued that many third-world
countries provide a better quality of education for one-tenth of
the amount that Alaska pays. He argued that the results
achieved by Alaska's schools produce "some of the dumbest
children" in the U.S. He characterized the bill as "taxation
without representation." He reiterated his opposition to HB
189.
7:31:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said whether Mr. Houghtaling believes
Alaska's system of education is good, bad, or otherwise, it's
not fair to call Alaska's children "dumb." He added that if an
individual does not receive a good education, it doesn't mean
he/she is unintelligent.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ agreed.
7:31:55 PM
FRANCESCA ALLEGREZZA expressed her opposition to the bill. She
believed that increasing taxes to pay for a "failed" education
system is not the answer. In response to Mr. Houghtaling, she
pointed out that intelligence is not measured by education. She
believed that instead of focusing on math, reading, and writing,
schools are teaching "social justice and critical race theory,
which should not be taught in school, she opined.
7:33:36 PM
TRAVIS WILSON, stated his strong opposition to the bill,
characterizing it as a "garbage" tax. He explained that if an
employee was underperforming, he would not incentivize him/her
with a pay raise. Instead, he said he would "trim the fat." He
suggested auditing the education budget rather than increasing
the funding.
7:34:28 PM
NORM WOOTEN, Director of Advocacy, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), expressed his support for the proposed
legislation. He informed the committee that AASB has long held
resolutions that support early, sustainable, adequate, and
equitable funding for education. AASB, he said, has advocated
for many years to create a sustainable fiscal plan for the state
that will enable Alaskans to continue to enjoy the benefits this
state has to offer. He believed that Alaska currently stands on
the edge of a fiscal cliff, adding that it is disingenuous to
expect to live the same quality of life while failing to
recognize the real fiscal situation facing the state. He
characterized HB 189 as a baby step, but still a step towards
looking at additional revenue sources. He reiterated his
support for the bill.
7:36:02 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ closed public testimony.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ clarified that HB 189 does not propose
increasing funding for public education; instead, it proposes a
small payroll tax for the purpose of raising education. The
funds would go towards the public education fund, she added.
She noted that the legislature would still have the opportunity
to make choices about how to allocate funds on an annual basis.
7:37:03 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 32-
LS0753\G.2, Nauman, 5/3/21, which read:
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "first two" in both places
Insert "second and third" in both places
7:37:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE objected for the purpose of discussion.
7:37:24 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ conveyed that Amendment 1 is proposing to deduct
from the employee's "second and third" payrolls of the year
instead of the "first two" payrolls. She proposed a conceptual
amendment to Amendment 1, such that "second and third" would be
changed to "third and fourth;" therefore, the deductions would
not affect the first two paychecks of a calendar year, which she
characterized as insensitive. She explained that she wanted to
give people a buffer after the holiday season. There being no
objection, the conceptual amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted.
7:38:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE removed his objection to Amendment 1.
Without further objection, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
7:38:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 32-
LS0753\G.4, Nauman, 5/3/21, which read:
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "$20,000"
Insert "$30,000"
Delete "$50"
Insert "$0"
Page 2, line 1:
Delete "$20,000"
Insert "$30,000"
Delete "$50,000"
Insert "$60,000"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "$50,000"
Insert "$60,000"
Delete "$100,000"
Insert "$90,000"
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "$100,000"
Insert "$90,000"
Delete "$500,000"
Insert "$120,000"
Delete "$300"
Insert "$400"
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "$500,000"
Insert "$120,000"
Delete "$500"
Insert "$600"
7:38:38 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
7:38:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that Amendment 2 would adjust
the income brackets for the education head tax to address
several concerns that were conveyed during public testimony. He
relayed that the first bracket would be changed from $0-$20,000
to $0-$30,000; further, the deduction for that bracket would be
changed from $50 to $0. Consequently, the lowest income bracket
would not have to contribute to the head tax. Additionally,
Amendment 2 would adjust the head tax for the other income
brackets to allow for progressivity, as opposed to regressivity.
7:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed his support for Amendment 2.
He said he tends to agree with the conservative argument that
everyone can pay something minimal. He believed that it gives
all citizens "skin in the game" and creates political viability.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out a contradiction in
Representative Josephson's statement, as he had stated that he
agrees with the concept that everyone should contribute
something minimal; however, per Amendment 2, the lowest income
bracket would pay $0 in head tax.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON maintained that he had a small concern
about the $0-$30,000 income bracket contributing nothing.
Nonetheless, he said he intended to support Amendment 2 and not
offer Amendment 3, which would have raised more revenue from
higher-earning citizens.
7:42:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL directed attention to page 2, line 4 of
Amendment 2 and sough to confirm that the highest income bracket
would be lowered from $500,000 or more to $120,000 or more.
Further, he opined that even with the changes proposed in
Amendment 2, the education head tax would not be progressive.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained the changes proposed in
Amendment 2 in further detail. He relayed that people making
$0-$30,000 would pay $0; $30,000-$60,000 would pay $100;
$60,000-$90,000 would pay $200; $90,000-$120,000 would pay
$400l; and those making over $120,000 would pay $600. He noted
that the head tax would not be a true income tax, as it's a flat
amount based on wages instead of percentage based.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked how Amendment 2 would affect the fiscal
notes and the bill's earning potential.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that it shouldn't adjust the
cost of the program; however, it would slightly reduce the total
revenue generated from the education head tax. He estimated
that the proposed amendment would reduce the revenue from $65
million to $55 million.
7:45:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled that a head tax got its name
because everyone paid per "head," or person. He clarified that
historically, a head tax was never based on income. He
continued to explain that the head tax was reintroduced with the
addition of "gradation step ups." He opined that even the
discussion of percentage of income in relation to this proposal
defeats the purpose of a head tax. Further, he shared his
belief that an individual who earns $30,000 could afford to pay
$30. He acknowledged that the head tax would deduct a larger
percentage of a lower earner's income compared to those in the
high-income brackets; nonetheless, he pointed out that the same
could be said about the PFD, but it still gets distributed. He
expressed some concern about the lowest income bracket paying $0
and suggested that those making $0-$30,000 pay a head tax of
$20. Further, he estimated that if Amendment 2 were to pass in
its current form, 130,000 wage earners would not be
contributing, which he characterized as unfair.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE believed that the reductions to the PFD
in recent years counterbalanced that to some extent, as the
lowest earners were the most affected by that "reduced negative
tax."
7:47:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY shared her understanding that people making
up to $30,000 would be comfortable paying a $20 tax;
accordingly, she opined that a contribution is worthwhile. She
questioned how Representative Schrage came up with the $400
figure for the $90,000-$120,0000 income bracket.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE shared that he had structured the
deductions to allow for a modest increase in the effective tax
rate throughout the income brackets. He explained that a $400
tax would equate to four-tenths of a percent for the $90,000-
$120,000 bracket, which is slightly above the previous bracket's
tax rate at three-tenths of a percent. He reiterated that his
intent was to add a small aspect of progressivity to the tax
structure. He noted that he would be amenable to a conceptual
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she was comfortable with the amount
presented in the current version of the bill.
7:50:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE shared that he would be most amenable to
amending the deduction for the lowest income bracket, as it has
instigated the most discussion. He believed that decreasing the
deduction from $400 to $300 for the income bracket of $90,000-
$120,0000 would reduce the effective tax rate; consequently, he
would not be as supportive of that change.
7:50:32 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
7:50:59 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 2, such that "$0" would be replaced with "$25" on page
1, line 5. There being no objection, the conceptual amendment
was adopted.
7:51:44 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ, hearing no further objection to Amendment 2,
announced that Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
7:51:53 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
7:52:07 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that she withdrew her objection to
Amendment 2. Without further objection, she restated that
Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted. She invited further
discussion on the underlying bill, HB 189.
7:52:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON associated Alaska's fiscal problems
with the state's lack of a broad-based tax. He stressed that
this measure must be passed, adding that people must contribute
to state government.
7:53:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE aligned himself with the comments from
Representative Josephson. Regarding several comments made
during public testimony, he clarified that the proposed
legislation would not increase education funding; instead, it
would increase the funding available to the legislature to
appropriate to the schools. He believed that Alaska's teachers
and administrators do care about their students' education,
contrary to some of the previous testimony. Further, he
explained that if the state were to pay out full statutory
dividends, there would be no money left for dividends in a
decade. He acknowledged that something needs to be done to
address the education system in this state; however, he believed
that Alaska's schools do a good job at educating students
despite the low performance scores for the third and fourth
grades. He shared his understanding that the low performance
scores are largely a result of students who are unprepared to
learn and may not know how to read, write, or recognize the
alphabet. Further, he pointed out that the state's schools do
quite well when measuring the improvement from kindergarten to
third grade. He opined that "cherry picking" statistics does
not serve anybody.
7:55:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY pointed out that education is one of the
largest investments for every state. She reported that Alaska
falls in the middle of the pack for funding when adjusted for
inflation. Additionally, she noted that the base student
allocation (BSA) has not been adjusted for six years. She
explained that flat funding and increased expenses has resulted
many districts cutting their budgets and losing services.
Nonetheless, she shared her understanding that schools are
providing good instruction. She expressed her support for the
bill and emphasized the importance of considering new revenues
to solve Alaska's fiscal situation.
7:57:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL recalled that historically, Alaska had both
a head tax and an income tax until revenue started rolling in
from oil production. He welcomed this proposal as a small first
step towards new revenue. Additionally, he clarified that
there's no correlation between the education head tax and school
performance. He stated his support for advancing the proposed
legislation.
7:58:41 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ recalled the Tax Foundation's testimony about
Alaska having the lowest tax burden in the nation. Further, New
Hampshire is the only other state that lacks both a sales and
income tax; however, New Hampshire has high local property
taxes, which funds its government, she said. The Tax Foundation
had also informed the committee that if the state were to adopt
a broad-based revenue measure, Alaska would still have one of
the lowest tax burdens in the nation. She emphasized that
although the proposed legislation is not a broad-based revenue
measure that would balance the budget, it's a first step.
8:00:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report CSHB 189, Version 32-
LS0753\G, Nauman, 4/28/21, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Without objection, CSHB 189(W&M) was moved from the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 189 Testimony - Support as of 5.4.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| Great Alaska Schools 4.28.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 Testimony - Opposition as of 5.4.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 Amendment Packet - Ways and Means 5.4.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| CSHB 189 Workdraft version G 4.28.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/1/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HW&M 5/1/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 4.30.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/1/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HW&M 5/1/2021 11:30:00 AM HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 Testimony - Support as of 5.6.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 Testimony - Opposition as of 5.6.21.pdf |
HW&M 5/4/2021 5:30:00 PM |
HB 189 |