Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
02/24/2015 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL 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 | |
| HB75 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 75-MUNI REGULATION OF MARIJUANA; ADV. BOARDS
8:02:57 AM
CHAIR TILTON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 75, "An Act relating to the regulation of
marijuana by municipalities; and providing for an effective
date."
8:04:05 AM
CHAIR TILTON informed the committee that she and her staff
worked closely with the municipal attorneys around the state as
well as the Marijuana Policy Project to craft legislation that
is responsive to both the needs of the local government while
staying within the intent of the initiative sponsor.
8:04:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt CSHB 75, Version 29-
LS0345\P, Martin, 2/19/14, as the working document.
CHAIR TILTON objected for discussion purposes.
8:05:04 AM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff, Representative Tilton, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that the committee has been provided with a
sectional analysis. The non-substantive changes embodied in
Version P mainly change the reference from "local government" to
"municipality" as the municipal attorneys and attorneys from
Legislative Legal Services believe it to be the more proper
statutory reference. The non-substantive changes also include
some grammatical changes that conform to the legislature's
drafting standards. Mr. Hilyard then turned to the nine
substantive sections of Version P. On page 1, lines 4 through
page 2, line 4, Section 1 amends the definition of marijuana to
conform to the language in Ballot Measure 2, AS 17.38, with a
minor exception. The minor exception is the deletion of the
term "salt" as it's believed to have no functional meaning. On
page 2, lines 5-27, Section 2 places sideboards on the meaning
of "assisting" found in AS 17.38.020(e) because municipal
attorneys expressed concern with the lack of a specific
definition for the term. On page 3, line 26 through page 4,
line 1, Section 8 references "marijuana clubs," which is later
defined in the legislation as places where people can come
together to use marijuana in a nonprofit manner. Municipalities
are aware that there is likely interest in establishing
marijuana clubs, but they want to be able to allow or disallow
them. In order to achieve the aforementioned, marijuana clubs
needs to be defined. Section 8 also starts the process for a
local option election for established villages, which weren't
included in the original ballot language. On page 5, lines 22-
31, Section 16 there is a drafting error such that the term
"shall" needs to be changed to "may". He noted that there is an
amendment to that effect. The intent, he explained, is to allow
municipalities, if they so choose, to create local advisory
boards.
MR. HILYARD then informed the committee that on page 5, lines
28-31, Section 16, the language stipulates that all the powers
are nonareawide. Therefore, a borough can adopt its own
regulations, but those regulations wouldn't apply within the
city limits of those cities located within the borough's
boundaries. On page 6, line 1 through page 8, line 18, Section
17 sets forth the process by which an established village can
hold a local option election for the prohibition or removal [of
a prohibition of marijuana establishments and commercial
marijuana activities within the boundary of an established
village.] The aforementioned language in Section 17 essentially
mirrors the Title 4 language as it pertains to alcohol. He
mentioned that there was a question regarding the language
"prohibit or remove" on page 8, line 15. Continuing the
sectional analysis, Mr. Hilyard directed attention to page 8,
lines 23-26, Section 19, which adds "marijuana club" to the
definition of "marijuana establishments" that can be established
under the provisions of AS 17.38. Section 20, page 8, line 27
through page 9, line 4, revises the definition of marijuana such
that it's consistent with Section 1 of the legislation and Title
11. The functional effect of the aforementioned is to have one
standard definition of marijuana in statute. On page 9, lines
5-13, Section 21 provides express definitions for "established
village", "marijuana club", and "public place". Municipalities
were concerned with regard to the definition that would be used
for the term "public place", which is defined as it is in AS
11.81.900 of the criminal statutes. On page 9, line 14, Section
22 removes "local government" from the definitions section found
in AS 17.38 because the term "municipality" is being used in
lieu of "local governments. Section 23 provides an immediate
effective date for the legislation.
8:12:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the definition of "public
place."
MR. HILYARD deferred to Ms. Martin.
8:12:51 AM
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, informed the committee that "public place" is
defined in AS 11.81.900, as follows:
(53) "public place" means a place to which the
public or a substantial group of persons has access
and includes highways, transportation facilities,
schools, places of amusement or business, parks,
playgrounds, prisons, and hallways, lobbies, and other
portions of apartment houses and hotels not
constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual
residence;
8:13:32 AM
CHAIR TILTON opened public testimony.
8:13:47 AM
BROOKS CHANDLER informed the committee that although he is an
attorney in Anchorage with a firm that represents a number of
municipalities in Alaska, he is testifying today on his own
behalf. He expressed thanks to [Chair Tilton] and Mr. Hilyard
for reaching out to municipal attorneys as a group. He
characterized the legislation as a good start and related his
support for the amendment changing "shall" to "may" [on page 5,
line 25] in Version P. He opined that the change to "may" with
respect to the creation of a local advisory board provides for
flexibility that he felt was most appropriate over a one-size-
fits-all mandate.
8:16:19 AM
LUKE HOPKINS, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, opined that
the issue of "public place" is problematic for a borough form of
government with cities within its jurisdiction. Last night, the
City of Fairbanks passed an ordinance in which an individual is
prohibited from knowingly consuming marijuana [in a public
place] without the consent of the owner. The aforementioned
will be difficult to enforce whether it's civil actions by a
code enforcement officer in the case of the borough or by city
police. Therefore, Mayor Hopkins related that he is going to
propose the borough assembly prohibit the use of marijuana in
situations in which the individual can be clearly viewed from a
public right-of-way, highway, or other public area. Clearly
consuming marijuana [in public view] is the issue at the borough
level. Therefore, he expressed concern with regard to how
"public place" is defined at the state level. He pointed out
that [local government] ordinances have already been passed that
are more restrictive than the state's definition of "public
place." Mayor Hopkins stated his desire for local
municipalities to be able to adopt their rules/definitions
rather than using those of the state. He expressed concern that
once the state defines "public place," the municipalities won't
be able to have a more restrictive definition.
8:19:22 AM
MAYOR HOPKINS then directed attention to page 5, line 30, which
establishes local control as a nonareawide power, which is
problematic if an areawide ordinance is more restrictive than
that of the city's ordinance. In a situation in which the
borough or state language is more restrictive than that of an
incorporated city or home rule city, he expressed the desire for
the borough or state law to be in effect. The boroughs already
have zoning and taxing powers over the cities, and thus the
borough could use zoning to restrict what happens across the
city boundary as is the case currently. On the other hand, if
the borough has a less restrictive ordinance than a city, he
expressed the desire for the city's more restrictive ordinance
to be in force. He then noted that he was pleased that the
committee is addressing marijuana clubs.
8:23:07 AM
WENDY DOXEY, Assistant Borough Attorney, Fairbanks North Star
Borough, began by directing the committee to page 2, line 24,
and opined that the language doesn't add any clarity to what it
means to "assist." In particular, the language [on page 2, line
25] "allowed in this section." doesn't seem to add any meaning.
The borough, she related, is concerned whether there is any
limit to the [amounts of marijuana] for personal use.
Furthermore, the "assist" language doesn't seem to provide
guidance with regard to potential proxy grows. She then turned
attention to page 4, line 7, and expressed the need to insert
"and criminal" following "civil". The Fairbanks North Star
Borough doesn't have the power to enact and enforce criminal
penalties, but the cities within the borough do and the
[borough's position] is to maximize such local control. She
acknowledged that since the powers granted in Title 29 aren't
eliminated, the cities could be construed to still have those
powers. However, she expressed concern that if this ever goes
before the court, the court could follow the canon of statutory
construction that the [power] that was left out was left out on
purpose. Therefore, Ms. Doxey opined that it would be safer and
clearer to specify that municipalities can create civil and
criminal penalties under the provision.
8:26:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested Mayor Hopkins conflate the
language "use in a public place" and "public view," from a
municipality's standpoint.
MAYOR HOPKINS clarified that [the borough] is using the
definition of "public" as specified in AS 17.38.020 and AS
17.38.040 with the addition of language referring to outdoor
locations, vehicles, and other locations. Basically, the
definition of "public" refers to "the consumption of marijuana
is clearly observable from the foregoing public places and any
location similar to those places delineated herein,
notwithstanding the foregoing a location with proper licensure
in place and that is in compliance with state law and
regulation, borough ordinances that has licensure is not a
public place in this definition." In further response to
Representative Seaton, Mayor Hopkins clarified that the
Fairbanks North Star Borough ordinance includes more content,
such as lakes, rivers, doorways, and apartment buildings, than
the definition of "public place" in AS 11.81.900(a)(53). The
important aspect, he remarked, is that the marijuana use isn't
viewable from a public place.
8:30:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked if Ms. Doxey had a suggestion as to
how to clearly define "assisting" on page 2.
MS. DOXEY informed the committee that the borough will propose
an ordinance that will define "assisting" as follows:
"Assisting means, in all conjugate forms, helping another person
in the act described in this chapter by providing aid or support
in the performance of those acts. Assisting does not include
possessing or growing that marijuana which belongs to or is
owned by another person as an agent for that person."
8:31:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES questioned whether there needs to be
written documentation assigning the assistance to an individual.
MS. DOXEY said there has been some discussion of that amongst a
working group of municipal attorneys. Although some municipal
attorneys view that as a solution, she wasn't sure the Fairbanks
North Star Borough views it as a good solution. The borough is
concerned with the potential for these proxy grows to become
large. Furthermore, the personal use provision of the
initiative seems to be written in a manner that allows barter
exchanges of marijuana. The aforementioned coupled with the
"assisting" language that allows proxies could allow enormous
personal use grow operations, which would undermine the
commercial license market for marijuana. The notion is that
obtaining marijuana in exchange for something should be through
commercial facilities, while personal use should be restricted
to personal use rather than a large personal use barter market.
8:34:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether there was any discussion
regarding limiting the number of people who could be assisted.
MS. DOXEY answered that she wasn't sure that was discussed.
8:34:51 AM
CHAIR TILTON pointed out that Ms. Doxey's language was used as a
base for HB 75.
8:35:19 AM
DENNIS WHEELER, Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage,
continuing the discussion about the term "assist," informed the
committee that he was aware of at least one medical marijuana
grow that provides assistance by growing plants for those who
need medical marijuana. He predicted that model would transfer
to the recreational use of marijuana if the term "assist"
included being allowed to assist on behalf of others, and thus
would be problematic [in this legislation]. With regard to the
earlier mention of adding a provision for local governments to
have criminal provisions, Mr. Wheeler opined that it's of
particular importance for the [legal department] of the
Municipality of Anchorage because it includes a criminal
division. He anticipated that proposed legislation, SB 30 and
HB 79, removing most felonies related to marijuana and replacing
them with misdemeanors would increase the [municipal legal
department's] workload. He opined that to the extent possible,
it would be preferable for the municipality to use its own
misdemeanor code to achieve its local enforcement goals. In
fact, the [legal department of the Municipality of Anchorage]
has been working with the state to take on more misdemeanor work
so that the state can focus on felonies. Therefore, he noted
his appreciation for that issue being addressed in HB 75. With
respect to the terms "public place" and "public view," Mr.
Wheeler predicted that there will be differences of opinion with
regard to "consumption in a public place" versus "a cultivation
exposed to public view." Therefore, he suggested inserting a
default clause, such as "unless otherwise defined by local
ordinance, public place means," for the definitions of "public
place" and "public view." The aforementioned would allow local
governments to address their particular circumstances. He then
noted that [municipalities] are experiencing pressure to hold
marijuana events during which marijuana is both displayed and
consumed. In conclusion, Mr. Wheeler related general support of
HB 75.
8:39:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding the terms "assisting" and
"providing aid," said he understood the argument with regard to
aiding multiple people in one facility. However, he questioned
how someone aiding someone else in their own home or another
facility would work.
MR. WHEELER recalled hearing a suggestion to view it similar to
subsistence, personal use, or hunting such that an individual
has a proxy and works to assist one individual not many
individuals. Since the aforementioned may be too restrictive,
he suggested that perhaps it could be used as a model. He
pondered whether there isn't as much concern whether such a
limitation is burdensome with the recreational use of marijuana
versus medical marijuana for which there might be the desire to
allow an individual to assist more than one other individual.
8:40:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the statute as written
[differentiates] between multiple plants in one location/home
versus an individual assisting in a number of different homes.
MR. WHEELER acknowledged there has been a question regarding how
many plants are allowed in a household. From the municipality's
perspective, he opined that "assist" means that an individual
could go to someone's house to help them with their growing,
planting, or processing of marijuana but wouldn't transport or
grow it for them at the [home] of the assisting individual. Mr.
Wheeler opined that the aforementioned needs to be refined. In
further response to Representative Seaton, Mr. Wheeler confirmed
that Section 2 of the legislation doesn't clarify the
aforementioned and needs more work.
8:42:30 AM
SCOTT BLOOM, Attorney, City of Kenai, stated he is very
supportive of local options and opposes local mandates. Since
the City of Kenai is a home rule municipality with its own
police force, he expressed the desire for there to be local
options for criminal enforcement. Mr. Bloom noted that he is a
huge advocate for bright-line rules. To that end, he suggested
a household limit for the number of plants for personal use.
Such a limit would avoid the difficulties with the language
"assist" that would result in law enforcement having to make
determinations regarding whether the plants belong to someone
else [living outside of the home] or whether they are proxy
plants.
8:44:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the [City of Kenai's]
position on the nonareawide powers base of [Version P].
MR. BLOOM clarified that the City of Kenai would like
nonareawide powers. As a home rule city, the council and
residents of Kenai anticipate regulating marijuana use in the
City of Kenai as opposed to relying on the borough to regulate
it.
8:45:44 AM
CHAIR TILTON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
8:46:07 AM
MR. HILYARD clarified that the definition of "assist" that Ms.
Doxey provided to the committee was forwarded to Legislative
Legal Services for use as the base language. The resulting
language on page 2, line 21, is how Legislative Legal Services
interpreted that language to be included in statute. With
regard to the suggestion for plant limits per household, Mr.
Hilyard related that there has been ongoing discussion with the
municipal attorneys and the Marijuana Policy Project regarding
that issue. Originally, there was a commitment to the
initiative sponsors that to the degree possible the legislation
would live within the intent of the initiative, which is why any
limitation other than the six plants per adult was felt to run
afoul of the original initiative. However, he noted that he
recently received information from Rachelle Yeung, Marijuana
Policy Project, relating that several Colorado counties are
adopting plant limits per household that are more restrictive
than the Colorado initiative. The Marijuana Policy Project now
believes such limits are consistent with the overall intent of
the initiative. Therefore, he opined there is room to perhaps
allow municipalities to make decisions on their own, and thus
could be included in a subsequent committee substitute.
8:49:02 AM
MR. HILYARD, in response to Representative Seaton, informed the
committee that a February 21, 2015, email from Rachelle Yeung,
Marijuana Policy Project, highlights that Denver County imposes
a maximum of 12 plants per type of dwelling and prohibits
cultivation in common dwellings. The aforementioned was more
conservative than the language adopted by the voters in
Colorado, but the Marijuana Policy Project found the language to
be consistent with the intent of the initiative. Therefore, he
surmised the committee could specify a household limit of plants
in HB 75 or it could remain silent on the specificity and allow
municipalities to adopt regulations on that matter.
8:51:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES referred to the language on page 2, lines
22-27, that specifies an individual can't possess more than six
plants. She asked if that means the individual assisting others
can't possess more than six plants himself/herself or can't
possess more than six plants per person they are assisting.
MR. HILYARD opined that there is a lack of clarity with this
definition. The intent, he explained, was to specify that an
individual assigned as an agent assisting someone else can't
exceed his/her own personal possession limit.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES surmised then that the intent is that
someone who is assisting others can't exceed the amount allotted
the individual person who is assisting.
MR. HILYARD replied yes.
8:53:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if on page 3, line 4, the insertion
of "municipality" is appropriate since the legislation now
includes established villages as an entity that can implement a
local option.
MR. HILYARD answered that he didn't believe it would be
applicable because an established village has no means to make
or impose an ordinance or penalties since it has no formal
governing structure. The local election included for
established villages speaks to whether the village will or will
not allow commercial marijuana operations.
8:54:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ, referring to page 6, line 2, asked if the
local option is always a vote of the people rather than [a vote]
from a particular governmental body.
MR. HILYARD stated that AS 17.38.110 is the body of statute that
deals with local control. He directed attention to the language
on page 3, lines 26-31, that says an established village may
prohibit the operation of marijuana establishments by a voter
initiative, election.
8:56:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES directed attention to page 7, line 25, and
related her understanding that the language allows either a
local governing body or marijuana control board to help set the
perimeter of an established village if there is no post office.
However, the language on page 8, line 9, would allow the
marijuana control board to determine the perimeter of an
established village if the perimeter doesn't accurately reflect
the perimeter of the established village. She inquired as to
why the local governing body wouldn't be given the authority to
establish the perimeter.
MR. HILYARD, based on conversations with the legislative
attorney Ms. Martin, opined that the language on page 8, lines
9-13, is the presumption of the absence of a local governing
body. The entirety of Section 17 of Version P is essential
language that is identical to that of Title 4 relating to
alcohol local option elections. The reference to "board" refers
to either the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board") or
a marijuana control board, if the legislature establishes one.
8:58:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed concern with the lack of
reference to a local governing body for an established village
in this legislation and existing Title 4 statute. If the five-
mile radius doesn't work and there is the desire to make it
larger, she opined that might be something the local governing
body should be able to address.
MR. HILYARD characterized that as a good point.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked if the sponsor would consider a
conceptual amendment to address the aforementioned.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee of the testimony it
received from villages wanting to have a 25-mile buffer zone.
He cautioned against using language that would allow a local
option to control as much land as is locally determined and
requested more definition before forwarding something like that.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES reiterated her question as to why a state
board would be given this authority rather than a local
governing body.
9:01:38 AM
CHAIR TILTON withdrew her objection. There being no further
objection, Version P was adopted.
9:01:56 AM
The committee took a brief at ease.
9:02:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1, labeled 29-LS0345\P.2, Nauman/Martin, 2/20/15, which read:
Page 5, line 25:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
9:02:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES explained that Amendment 1 is a technical
correction to reflect the language of the initiative such that
municipalities "may" create a local advisory board.
9:03:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:03:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES moved that the committee adopt Amendment
2, labeled 29-LS0345\P.1, Nauman/Martin, 2/20/15, which read:
Page 4, line 7, following "civil":
Insert "and criminal"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
9:03:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES reminded the committee that there was
testimony to include "and criminal" penalties for the violation
of an ordinance or regulation. The desire was to avoid any
ambiguity.
9:04:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the change in Amendment 2
isn't criminalizing the use of marijuana but rather simply says
that civil and criminal penalties can be imposed for violations
to "the time, place, manner, and number of marijuana
establishment operations."
9:05:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:05:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his belief that it would be much
clearer for enforcement purposes if there was a specific number
of plants per household rather than having the "assisting"
language. He suggested that the [limit on the number of plants
in a household] shouldn't be more than the number of adults in
the household. In fact, he said he would support the limit
being no more than two personal use limits, 12 plants, per
household. The "assisting," he opined, would occur in other
establishments or other people's homes, which would eliminate
the concern with assisting multiple people in one household
beyond the personal limit. He expressed concern with the
personal limit being set at six plants even if there are four
people in the home. He concluded by encouraging consideration
of the aforementioned.
9:07:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ noted his support of Representative
Seaton's comments. He then asked if Mr. Hilyard had received
any feedback from Alaska's initiative sponsors regarding a
household limit.
MR. HILYARD responded that he hasn't had a specific discussion
[regarding a household limit] with Dr. Tim Hinterberger, who is
the chair of Alaska's Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like
Alcohol. However, he reiterated that he did have the
conversation with Ms. Yeung, who is the policy and legal counsel
for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol and found
[the household limit] to be consistent [with the campaign].
9:08:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that using the language "view from
a public place" could be problematic, and thus he expressed the
need for the committee to give more thought to such a large
extension of the prohibition against consuming in a public place
without using the public option. He predicted that the
aforementioned extension could result in conflicting
regulations.
9:11:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked if the Alaska State Troopers have
offered their view of this issue with local control in terms of
enforcement. Representative Ortiz said that although he
supports local control, he could foresee problems with
enforcement of rules that vary dependent upon location.
MR. HILYARD answered that he has had no conversations with the
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, regarding
this legislation, in part, because HB 75 is trying not to delve
too far into criminal aspects. However, he acknowledged the
concerns with enforcement. He noted that some policy questions
were not included in the legislation, in part, so that the
committee could make determinations as to where the legislation
will head.
9:13:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES, returning to the concept of "public
place" and [consuming in public view], remarked that she is
thinking in terms of protecting children. She opined that it's
better to start with tighter [laws] and then open them up if
necessary. She further opined that at first blush she is more
supportive of including the where observable language in order
to protect children, particularly when one looks at how alcohol
has been treated.
9:15:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the definition of
marijuana in HB 75 doesn't exclude agricultural hemp, which is
cannabis. Therefore, agricultural hemp needs to be addressed
because every farm is viewable from a public place.
MR. HILYARD related his understanding that the functional intent
of the language on page 1, lines 12-13, which read "does not
include fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from
the seeds of the plant", was to not include industrial hemp as
part of the proper definition of marijuana.
9:17:42 AM
MR. HILYARD reiterated that the legislation was drafted to fall
within the intent of the initiative sponsors, and thus is based
on the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. Therefore,
a prohibition against consuming marijuana within public view
wasn't addressed as there's no such prohibition with alcohol.
Again, there are policy discussions for which the committee
needs to provide direction.
9:18:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the language on page 1,
lines 12-14, doesn't include the growing of industrial hemp,
agriculture. If the intent is to exclude industrial hemp, it
needs to be addressed in the legislation, he indicated.
9:19:36 AM
CHAIR TILTON announced that HB 75 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB 75 Version P.pdf |
HCRA 2/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 75 |
| Sourcebook for Municipal Marijuana.pdf |
HCRA 2/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 75 |
| CSHB75 Sectional Analysis, versionP.pdf |
HCRA 2/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 75 |
| HB075-DCCED-ABC-02-20-15.pdf |
HCRA 2/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 75 |
| CSHB 75 Public Comment, Brandt-Erichsen.pdf |
HCRA 2/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 75 |
| Amendment CS HB 75 Version P.2, PROPOSED.pdf |
HCRA 2/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 75 |
| CSHB 75 AMENDMENT P1, Proposed.pdf |
HCRA 2/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 75 |