Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/13/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB325 | |
| Indirect Expenditure Hearing | |
| HB400 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 325 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 400 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 325-PRISONER COMPUTER USE; REENTRY SERVICES
3:22:16 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 325, "An Act relating to computer use by
prisoners; and relating to an exemption from the State
Procurement Code for contracts for rehabilitation and reentry
services."
3:22:54 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Department of Corrections (DOC),
explained that the community residential center (CRC) - or
halfway house - model has been in existence for 20 years with no
changes. The CRCs are where inmates go who are exiting the
prison system; some are on furlough; some are on electronic
monitoring; they are trying to find a job and a place to live.
He stated that currently there is one option for where inmates
can live while transitioning from prison to home or to wherever
they will live; and that is within the CRC halfway house model.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that the problem with the CRC model
is that there has been a 60-65 percent recidivism rate in Alaska
for the past 15-20 years despite changes in the prison system.
He asserted that when people don't have a place to live or a job
when they have finished their sentences, the chance of failure
is high. He said that almost half of these failures occur
within the first six months of release. This occurs because the
process of transitioning from a "hard cell" environment to one
in which the person is productive must have a strategic and
stepdown plan; Alaska does not have that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS said that another reason the halfway house
model is fundamentally "broken" is the "walk-away" rate, or
escape rate. Every time someone escapes from the halfway
facility, it could result in a felony charge. In 2016, there
were 222 escapes from halfway houses; under his leadership and
with the assistance of staff, that number was reduced to 83 in
2017; however, every one of those escapes represents a new
potential felony charge against the person who walked away from
the halfway house.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS related a third reason for a broken
system: the cost of the CRC halfway house model is very
expensive. He recommended that the committee members not look
at the budgeted rate for a halfway house bed but look at the
actual cost. He offered to share the breakout of the cost with
the committee. He gave examples: at Cordova Center [in
Anchorage], the bed rate is $117 per day per person; at Tundra
Center in Bethel, the rate is $312 per day per person; at
Northstar Center in Fairbanks, the rate is $176 per day per
person; at Seaside Center in Nome, the rate is $145 per day per
person; and at Glacier Manor Half-Way House in Juneau, the rate
is $206 per day per person. He concluded that it is a costly
model, which is the reason he is looking for innovations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS continued by relating other problems with
the model: the inmates don't want to go to the halfway houses;
it is difficult to fill the beds due to problems at the facility
such as drug trafficking; and there isn't enough for the
residents to do. He maintained that without work to do or
places to go, the temptation is to escape or use drugs.
3:27:48 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel to Vice Chair LeDoux.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS gave a final cause contributing to the
[halfway house] model being broken: the procurement
requirements that DOC is currently under. He pointed out that
the request for proposal (RFP) for DOC is 150 pages; it
represents the boilerplate procurement procedures; and anything
over $100,000 requires a very cumbersome and bureaucratic
process. He maintained that the places where he wants inmates
to go when exiting prison are smaller locations and smaller
facilities. People do much better in those locations, and they
are cheaper. He referred to testimony during the 2/13/18 House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting from operators of some
of those small places.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS summarized by saying that it is his desire
that the committee members understand the scope of the issue and
why there are problems with the current halfway houses. He
mentioned that he appreciated the discussion and concerns raised
during the 2/13/18 committee meeting hearing. He maintained
that he is requesting an exception to the procurement rules, not
for the entire department but just for a small amount of money,
$17-18 million, to allow him to pilot a different model.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that the model in place has
benefited the DOC contractor for 20 years, and millions of
dollars are "on the line." He emphasized that this initiative
in no way is meant to disrespect the DOC contractor: this is
the contract DOC requested; it is the bid DOC awarded; and the
contractor provided the service. He maintained that DOC could
do better. He is requesting to be allowed an exception to the
procurement rules - if not for $17-18 million, then for $5
million - to try a pilot project to demonstrate improved
results. He said, "Put requirements on me if you must about
where that money was spent and how that was put together." He
reiterated that the current model is not working, and that is
why he is making this request to the committee.
3:30:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to Commissioner Williams's
testimony that there are drugs inside the halfway houses. She
asked if there is legal action that could be taken against a
contractor if drugs are allowed inside the halfway house.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered that the contractors are as
deeply concerned about this issue as is he. He maintained that
the problem lies in the halfway house model: it houses
50 people with no common purpose; some are using drugs and
bring them into the halfway house; some are recovering drug
addicts that don't want to have drugs around. He asserted that
the contractors are not allowing the presence of drugs but are
fighting it like he is.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her concern regarding
establishing a halfway house in a neighborhood without notice to
the neighborhood and the possibility that the proposed
legislation would allow the requirement of public notice to be
circumvented. She added that halfway house residents are
criminals and putting them into neighborhoods would
understandably make residents unhappy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that the proposed legislation
would not preclude any local ordinances, requirements, or
controls regarding the locations of the halfway houses. There
would be discussions at the municipal level, prospective
providers would be heard, as well as objections, and it would be
a community decision. He stated that another consideration is
that the residents of the halfway houses are being released to
the communities regardless. He offered that his proposal
addresses a choice: either an inmate will spend the last six
months of his/her sentence in a halfway house with a 65 percent
recidivism rate upon release due to insecure employment and
housing; or the inmate will live in a local, innovative housing
unit that is smaller, under the control of local ordinances, but
where escapes and drugs are less likely. He added that people
in the smaller locations have problems, but there are fewer
problems. There are many more problems in the large places with
50-100 men, who have nothing in common; some want to continue
trafficking in drugs and some want to get well.
3:35:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed his concern that if halfway
houses are placed in communities with no economic opportunities,
an inmate who was not productive before prison, would not be
productive upon release even if he/she was in a smaller
residential facility. He offered that if procurement is an
issue, it could be addressed administratively. He referred to
the communities - Bethel, Cordova, and Nome - and questioned
what could be done in a halfway facility - whether it housed six
or sixty men - that would result in the residents being
productive. He maintained that there are drugs in prisons,
hospitals, and schools; the size of the facility would not make
a difference; if the residents are using drugs, then it is
impossible to keep the drugs out of the facility. He concluded
that he is unable to make the connections between procurement
codes, smaller living facilities, and the type of rehabilitation
that Commissioner Williams is seeking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that research shows that for peer-
oriented returning citizens, who have a common issue that they
are working on together, a six-bed facility is better than a
sixty-bed facility. He described the larger halfway houses:
sixty people housed in one place; four to six people to a room;
varied sleeping and employment schedules; and residents who are
not working. He stated that they are a "hodge-podge" of
individuals who don't have "a lot pulling together."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS said that the reason that smaller
locations work better is because the residents support each
other; they help each other find jobs; and they are held
accountable by a house parent. He said that this model is used
in Norway; the recidivism rate is 25 percent. He maintained
that the success in that country is not just because of the
money that is spent on prison treatment programs. Their prisons
are not that much better that those of the U.S., although there
are a few things they do better. He said, "What they are better
at is how they step people down." The prisoners start out at a
maximum-security facility; they work their way out; they go into
a halfway house in downtown Oslo with a maximum of 15-20 beds;
and they all have jobs. He continued by saying that finishing
one's prison sentence in one of these halfway houses is a
privilege; the residents all have a lot to lose. He reiterated
that the research on the success of the small peer-oriented
facilities is very clear; and the operators of these small
facilities have testified that the results are good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS mentioned a facility in the Kenai area:
it is a faith-based organization; there are three individuals
just out of prison at the facility; the operator is helping them
to secure jobs and "keep on track"; and the individuals go to
Narcotics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous (NAAA) meetings. He
maintained that the operator is barely able to keep the facility
operating. He stated, "It's all on a shoestring. It's amazing
the results." He asked to be given the opportunity and
flexibility to pilot this initiative, because he sees already
that it is working.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that he has put many of the men
whom Commissioner Williams referenced to work and has seen very
limited success. He said that the men worked for a while; they
did very well; they were hard-working and smart; they were
happier than they had ever been; and they were making more money
than they had ever made. He stated that after about 30-60 days
of good paychecks, they don't make it to work on Monday; then
lose more days of work; then don't show up again; and
Representative Knopp gets a phone call that they are
incarcerated. He maintained that he is not as optimistic as the
faith-based [organization] that is doing this work every day.
He conceded that there have been a few successes with the men
being actively involved with the church.
3:41:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to sixty men in a halfway house
with ten units and six people to a unit. He conceded that a
small housing unit offers a more normal lifestyle for the
residents but suggested that there would be efficiencies in
having 60 men under one roof; having the men in ten different
properties would be very labor intensive and require additional
oversight, administration, and management.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded that the larger facility might
be operationally efficient; however, it is not economical. He
said that the larger facilities are very costly due to
requirements regarding cameras, doors, staffing, and many other
"hard" costs. He reiterated that he has broken out the costs
and can demonstrate the actual cost of the beds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS relayed that the other consideration is
that the failure rate is high [for the large facilities]. He
maintained that the smaller nonprofits are better at
transitioning inmates back into society: these facilities are
in smaller peer-oriented communities; the facilities are run by
well-intentioned and seasoned people who are in recovery and
have been for five to ten years; the involvement of the
operators in helping people reenter society is not only
different, but better. He explained that inmates do not want to
go to halfway houses, and their issues and concerns about going
to halfway houses are "real."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS expressed his belief that the current
halfway house model is the cornerstone of the failure to control
the high recidivism rate; and his staff is convinced of this as
well. He said that when asked why he is not putting more people
in halfway houses, he responds that there is a problem with the
model; the model was developed for relief for population
control; it is no longer used for that purpose but as a step-
down unit. He summarized that the easiest course of action for
him is to do nothing; however, continuing to follow the same
failed model after 20 years will not produce different results.
He stated that his job is to bring problems to the forefront and
attack them with new solutions. He asked the committee for its
help and for any suggestions it might offer.
3:45:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that his principle objection to HB
325 is bypassing the procurement guidelines. He expressed his
belief that there are administrative remedies, which the
Department of Law (DOL) could provide. He offered that absent
the procurement waiver proposed by HB 325, a competitive bid
document could be drafted by DOC that defines exactly what is
wanted. He expressed that Commissioner Williams appears to have
a very clear idea of what he wants for DOC and that it is a
model that Representative Birch supports. Representative Birch
offered his belief that there are people willing to operate
small halfway houses who could meet the standard established by
DOC, and the competitive bid process would work. He maintained
that the state gets into trouble when it waives procurement
guidelines; it has at times had a poor track in that area.
3:47:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed that he understands being
intimidated by a ream of paper with requirements. He commented
that the halfway house model is broken, as evidenced by the
recidivism rates, and the state should not allow "some old
methodology of 100 pages of procurement" stop it from trying
something new. He mentioned that he spoke to Kara Nelson
[Director, Haven House Juneau] who testified during the hearing
on HB 325 [during the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting of 2/13/18]. He referred to the public television [360
North] documentary, [entitled "Inside Out Leaving Prison
Behind"]; he recommended that the committee members see the
documentary. He repeated the question he asked Ms. Nelson after
the meeting, which was: Haven House is operating well;
therefore, what is the problem?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that the scope of the problem is
expecting someone from Haven House to work through an RFP. He
said that he appreciates the suggestion to shorten the RFP but
maintained that he doesn't know how to do that. Even if the RFP
is soliciting a proposal for a six-bed facility, if the bid is
for over $100,000, the entire process must still be followed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS stated that he is working on a "Plan B" if
HB 325 doesn't pass. He maintained that there is a reason that
the small facility operators don't apply and expend the great
effort.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that he learned [from Ms. Nelson] the
state can't pay Haven House to house inmates transitioning to
life outside, because the organization has not fulfilled the
procurement obligation; Haven House is operating on a volunteer,
nonprofit, donation basis; and it is not getting money from the
state. He mentioned that the state is paying the Northstar
Center in Fairbanks, $176 per day per person. He added that the
center is across the street from his business; the center has
"walk-aways", but that doesn't impact him because they don't
stay in the area. He mentioned that in the neighborhood where
he lives, there are a couple group homes for troubled youth, and
he doesn't really notice them either.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL maintained that he likes the Haven House
model as a method of transitioning prisoners to functioning on
the outside world. He asserted that he does not agree with the
statement, "Because they're once prisoners, they're forever
deemed unproductive, and you can never get them functioning in
society." He stated that he knows people who have been
incarcerated and are now out of prison and functioning well.
There are different reasons for people to go to jail; not all
are destined to a life of nonproductivity; people can be helped,
as Norway has demonstrated. He said that he believes that
downsizing and allowing for closer interactions is a good model.
He said that he applauds Commissioner Williams for exploring a
different model; and he supports circumventing the procurement
codes to allow for a limited pilot project. He said, "What's
the hurt in trying, because we're doing pretty poorly as it is?"
He mentioned the expense of one person supervising six residents
but maintained that there is a high cost associated with a 60-70
percent recidivism rate, that is, the added expense of public
safety, court, and prison.
3:52:56 PM
Vice Chair LeDoux stated that before supporting HB 325, she
wants to hear someone from the Department of Administration
(DOA) say that there is no way for smaller projects to have a
fast track or "lighter" procurement policy. She maintained that
if there is no way, then that is a problem. She offered that
rather than address this problem on a department-by-department,
project-by-project basis, there should be a mandate that the
administration adopt realistic procurement codes. She
maintained that she supports the model that Commissioner
Williams has presented; however, she claimed that she wants to
make sure there is no way the change could be made in the
procurement code. She stated that she would rather spend her
legislative time on something that resulted in a simpler
procurement code so that the requests from departments didn't
come in one by one and each need separate legislation. She
offered that projects under a certain amount could have a
streamlined procurement process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded by saying that for under
$100,000, there is a fast track; however, that amount is spread
out between three to five years. He gave an explanation using a
hypothetical situation: DOC signs a contract with Haven House;
it awards Haven House $50 per night per individual; there are
four to five people who are still serving sentences but are now
housed at Haven House; the amount exceeds $100,000 over the
course of three to five years - the length of the contracts. He
suggested that perhaps there should be more flexibility on the
fast track dollar amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS said that $17 million is spent on halfway
houses. He asked that as an alternative to the proposed
legislation, he be allowed to bypass the procurement rules for
$5 million; institute a pilot project; track the results after
three years; and try to improve the halfway house model.
3:56:05 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX maintained that if DOC has a problem with the
fast track, there are probably other departments with that
problem. She suggested that the procurement code should be
revised not just for DOC, but for all departments; and without
that, she cannot support the proposed legislation.
3:56:50 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX passed the gavel back to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK acknowledged the high recidivism rate; he
expressed that he is shocked by the escape rate at the halfway
houses. He suggested that the contracts require the halfway
houses not to allow escapes or to be penalized for them. He
offered that DOC could do better with the escape rate.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that he looked through the DOC
halfway house RFP and was not able to identify anything that
could be eliminated. He mentioned two provisions - facilities
must pay utilities and they must be bonded - and offered that
they are necessary. He asked what in the RFP specifications
could be eliminated. He also asked why DOC couldn't write the
RFP specifications to set a limit for the number of residents in
a halfway house. He maintained that a large part of a
prisoner's success upon leaving the corrections system is
oversight by proper peers - parole officers and probation
officers. He conceded that more focused attention on the
inmates does lose "economies of scale"; however, the greater
personal attention may help reduce the recidivism rate.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK summarized the reasons for the failures of
the current system: the expense per inmate is high; the
stepdown plan is inadequate stepdown; there is a high rate of
escapees; people don't want to live there because of the
atmosphere of drug trafficking; and there is nothing for the
residents to do.
4:00:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH cited Section 3 of HB 325, [page 3, lines
19-23], which read in part:
(b) In authorizing a contract for rehabilitation and
reentry services made under AS 36.30.850 and (a) of
this section, the commissioner or the commissioner's
designee shall make a determination that the payment
for rehabilitation and reentry services will promote
the use of community-based and culturally relevant
rehabilitative and reentry services most suited to
provide support for the individual
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that at some point DOC needs to
quantify what is being asked for in a contract: number of
square feet for a room; smoke detectors; and supervision
requirements. He maintained that DOC could describe what it
wants in detail; however, he conceded that quantifying the
qualifications of staff to provide rehabilitation and reentry
services would be more difficult. He stated that he supports
looking for options within the existing procurement code; he
expressed his belief that those options exist. He mentioned
that the commissioner's objective is meritorious; however, the
"safest bet" is for DOC to decide what it wants, put out an RFP,
and rely on a competitive bid process.
4:03:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 325 would be held over.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for the various ways that people are
put into halfway houses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS answered that the walk-away rate decreased
by about one-third from the prior year due to being "smarter"
about who was allowed into a halfway house. He stated that he
has been criticized for not releasing more inmates to halfway
houses; however, he maintained that to avoid the escape rate of
2016, DOC has pared down who was eligible for halfway houses.
He relayed that except for very few exceptions, halfway house
residents are people still serving sentences with six months to
a year remaining. The two main groups of halfway house
residents are inmates who are furloughed, as determined by
statute, and inmates on electronic monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that she got involved in
government because of someone trying to circumvent the
procurement code and has reservations about allowing it to
happen. She suggested that DOA staff provide information on the
procurement code and the committee explore possible changes to
the code. She also suggested that the committee hear testimony
from the halfway house contractors and get their input on
possible solutions to the halfway house problems.
4:06:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred with the suggestions.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the phrase "culturally relevant
rehabilitative and reentry services" and asked for the
percentage of halfway house inmates who are from outside of
Alaska's urban areas, who might receive a greater benefit by
being in a place with people from their own cultural background
and closer to home. He mentioned that there are a fair number
of Alaska Natives incarcerated; someone from a rural area
paroled in Anchorage must stay in Anchorage to be close to
his/her parole officer; rural halfway houses could help this
urban-rural divide, if there are such places willing to bid on
halfway house contracts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS replied that another reason why the
current model is broken is that there are not smaller facilities
in rural areas; people do not want to go to halfway houses in
one location and try to get a job, knowing that eventually they
will be leaving. He added that even the Matanuska-Susitna
("Mat-Su") Valley does not have stepdown housing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS mentioned Unalakleet and similar rural
communities and emphasized the benefits of financially
supporting even one stable home in such a region to allow Alaska
Natives to return to that location. An operator of a home that
size would never be able to prepare a bid according to the
current procurement code; the specification of square footage is
much less important than the location of the home; and closeness
to home and one's support system is more important. He stated
that the commissioner of DOC still has full custody of halfway
house inmates; in the smaller halfway houses, any problems can
be immediately and appropriately addressed with a measured
response. He agreed that the current halfway house model is not
culturally relevant to many inmates, and there are very few
options for finding a culturally relevant environment.
4:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP clarified his earlier question: For a
person who was nonproductive before jail, what would make them
productive upon release? He expressed his belief that smaller
halfway houses would have no effect on encouraging an inmate to
become productive. People who have had a lifetime of being
productive are likely to be productive after incarceration.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that there are two reasons for his
disagreement with the proposal in HB 325: one is waiving the
procurement code; the other is that contracting with smaller
facilities loses economies of scale. If the [hypothetical]
house in Unalakleet is not full, the price per square foot or
per bed would have to increase. He relayed that the discussions
on Senate Bill 91, [passed during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature (2015-2016) and signed into law 7/11/16], and the
discussions of HB 325 both noted the disproportionately higher
incarcerations rates of rural Alaska Natives and a need for
culturally relevant treatment. He maintained that if housing
inmates in a small rural community to attain cultural relevance
results in just one or two inmates, DOC has lost all economies
of scale.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he does not support HB 325 for
two reasons. He maintained that he does not support an
exception to the procurement code, however, would support a
review of the procurement code. He stated that secondly, he
does not agree with the overall plan behind the proposed
legislation.
[HB 325 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB400 Sponsor Statement 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Sectional Analysis 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 ver A 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Fiscal Note DPS 3.1.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment 1 3.7.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB400 Amendment2 3.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 400 |
| HB325 Sponsor Statement 2.05.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Sectional Analysis ver A 2.5.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 ver A 2.05.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Fiscal Note DOC 2.05.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Supporting Document-Letter DHSS 2.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Supporting Document testimony, T Eames CCTHITA 2.15.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/13/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Letter of Support- Michelle Overstreet 3.14.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB 325- Opposing Document- Letter from AACOP 3.30.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| H STA Indirect Expenditure Hearings 3.13.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/13/2018 3:15:00 PM |