Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/24/2023 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
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 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB106 | |
| HB111 | |
| HB106 | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 111-EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
8:09:13 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to public school
students who are deaf or have a hearing impairment."
8:09:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 111, Version 33-LS0504\S, Marx, 4/22/23,
as the work draft.
8:09:48 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD [HB 111 was set aside and discussed again later
during the meeting.]
HB 111-EDUCATION FOR DEAF & HEARING IMPAIRED
8:31:16 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD returned to HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating
to public school students who are deaf or have a hearing
impairment."
8:32:29 AM
LINDSEY CAUSER, Staff, Representative Jamie Allard, Alaska State
Legislature, Presented a PowerPoint titled "HB 111 - Deaf & Hard
of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights" [hard copy included in the
committee packet],on behalf of Representative Allard, prime
sponsor. She began with a summary of the information shown on
slide 2, titled "Who Does HB 111 Effect?," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
WHO DOES HB 111 EFFECT?
There are currently 149 deaf or hard of hearing
children in the State of Alaska.
79 Students in Anchorage
3 Students in Annette Island
12 Students in Fairbanks
3 Students in Galena
3 Students in Juneau
9 Students in Kenai Peninsula
5 Students in Kodiak Island
14 Students in Mat-Su
9 Students in Northwest Arctic
8:33:39 AM
MS. CAUSER continued to slide 3, titled "What services are
currently being offered?" She explained that the services being
offered are based on the district and their available resources.
She added that currently, there is nothing that says the school
districts must provide the information about resources available
to the students, adding that the bill would ensure that each
district is providing the same resources and making sure that
students and parents are aware. She further noted that the
school for the deaf is currently in admininstrative code, but
not in statute.
8:34:53 AM
MS. CAUSER continued to slide 4, titled "What Does HB 111 Do?,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
WHAT DOES HB 111 DO?
01. School District shall provide parent of child who
is deaf or hard of hearing with comprehensive,
neutral, and unbiased information on hearing
technology, methods of communication, services and
programs, and support and advocacy services offered by
public and private agencies.
02. Allows the parent of a child who is deaf or hard
of hearing to choose the method of communication that
the parent determines is the most appropriate.
03. Requires school district to provide services using
the parent's chosen method of communication for the
child.
04. School district shall deliver services to a child
who is deaf or hard of hearing through professionals
with training, experience, and background in the
chosen method of communication and shall inform a
parent of a child who is deaf or heard of hearing of
the school districts duties and of the parent's rights
provided.
05. Defines the following terms; bilingual approach,
cued speech, deaf, hard of hearing, listening and
spoken language, and total communication
06. Will codify the existence of a centralized school
of the deaf, moving it from Admin Code to Statue for
those that it is determined placement at the program
is appropriate for a child who resides in the
district.
MS. CAUSER further explained that it [the bill] would not force
every child who is deaf or hard of hearing in the state to go to
school in Anchorage. Instead, it would provide the services for
those who want to stay with family and want to be taught in the
school they are already enrolled in.
8:36:47 AM
MS. CAUSER gave the sectional analysis for HB 111, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: amends AS 14.30.272 by adding new
subsections:
1. School district must provide parent with
comprehensive information regarding,
a. Hearing technology
b. Different methods of communication
c. Services and programs designed to help
children who are deaf and hard of hearing
d. Information on support and advocacy services
offered by public and private agencies.
2. Parent chooses the method of communication that
will be the most appropriate for their child.
3. Services are delivered to child through
professionals with training, experience and a
background in the chosen method of communication.
d. School District must inform parent of school
districts duties and the parents rights under section
c.
e. In this section,
1. Definition of "bilingual approach"
2.Definition of "cued speech"
3.Definition of "deaf"
4. Definition of "hard of hearing"
5. Definition of "Listening and spoken
language"
6. Definition of "total communication"
Section 2: amends AS 14.30.276 by adding a new
subsection that requires the department to establish
and operate a centralized program for students whose
primary language is American Sign Language in the
least restrictive environment for those students,
provide residential services as part of the program,
establishes that a school district may operate the
program under specific requirements, and provide
funding for the students who attend the program
operated by a school districted under this subsection
to that school district.
MS. CAUSER added that the attached fiscal note shows a one-time
fee of $6,000 for legal fees to implement the necessary
regulation changes.
8:39:08 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD welcomed invited testimony.
8:39:16 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:39 a.m.
8:39:52 AM
ANDREA SAMUEL, representing self, testified in support of HB
111. She said one of her children uses cochlear implants to
listen and talk, and informed the committee of her background as
a practicing speech and language pathologist for ten years at
the time of her daughter's birth. Her job, she said, was to
help individuals with communication disorders regain their
ability to access language, but with all the tools she had,
educating a deaf or hard of hearing child was not one of them.
She said there is not currently a universal means of screening
[for hearing loss], and there are families who are faced with
communication decisions that may look different than parents
whose child's hearing loss was detected at birth. These
families need unbiased counseling and need to "make the final
call" as to what they want for their child, therefore, the right
professionals need to be available. She reiterated her support
for HB 111 and all things recognized within the bill.
8:45:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked Ms. Samuel whether her pediatrician
helped diagnose the [hearing] problem with her child.
MS. SAMUEL replied that in 2008, newborn hearing screening
[Early Hearing Detection and Intervention] was mandated in
Alaska so hospitals would have hearing screeners in place, which
is how she found out about her child's hearing. She added that
she had to go out of state due to lack of resources.
8:48:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether Ms. Samuel financed her
child's care through personal finances, insurance, or other
means.
MS. SAMUEL replied, "All of the above."
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his understanding that in the bill,
hearing problems might not be detected until the child enters
the school system. He expresses his concern about the lateness
of that detection.
MS. SAMUEL concurred; however, she noted that most children are
getting their hearing assessed at birth so the parents would be
aware. She said there is also the possibility of later onset
hearing loss which would not be caught right away.
8:52:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE expressed his interest in Ms. Samuel's
background in education and experience in her school district.
He asked how the bill would help the relationship, or barriers,
to her child's education.
MS. SAMUEL replied that she was lucky to live in the Anchorage
School District, which is fairly well resourced. She said what
she would like to see is more awareness among teachers and
administrators in supporting a child with hearing loss. She
added that environmental modifications are important, as well as
a well-versed educational audiologist on hand to counsel staff.
8:56:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked Ms. Samuel for her thoughts on
whether more statutory mandates are needed for districts in the
state to be able to provide the resources she had been
discussing.
MS. SAMUEL replied yes because often times what she had seen,
she said, is that school districts "kick the can down the road"
when they are faced with a task they are not well resourced for.
She opined that the bill would correct many issues facing the
treatment and education of hearing-impaired students and their
parents.
8:58:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked Ms. Samuel whether the bill in
its current form would do what she hoped.
MS. SAMUEL replied that the bill would provide the structure
that will result in a function. She added that the bill would
make clear to the school districts that all options must be
presented for helping deaf and hard of hearing students.
9:00:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY reiterated that the bill would have a
$6,000 fiscal note for the Department of Education & Early
Development (DEED), and she asked Ms. Samuel for her thoughts on
districts needing the resources. She drew attention to the
Special Education Service Agency (SESA) and asked Ms. Samuel
whether she had any insights into the agency.
MS. SAMUEL offered her perception about how much funding would
be attached to the bill when there is $6000 available. She
acknowledged the state's current deficit, but that is an
important part of passing a bill. She added that there is also
money that comes from the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) that serves special education (SPED)
children. Regardless of how much money the state has, she
opined, the proposed legislation is the right thing to do, and
needs to be in place.
9:03:58 AM
MS. CAUSER drew attention to page 2, line 3-7 of the bill, and
reiterated that the parent gets to choose the method of
communication that they determine to be most appropriate for
their child.
9:04:38 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD added that deaf and hard of hearing children
should be provided with the same opportunities as hearing
children. If students choose not to attend a specialized school
for the deaf and hard of hearing, they can go to any public
school of their choosing.
9:05:08 AM
MS. CAUSER revisited the fiscal note and shared her belief that
the increase for intensive students and SPED would fall
underneath the base student allocation (BSA) and be a part of
the formula increase.
9:05:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT reinforced her support for the bill.
She highlighted page 3, line 3, and asked whether the statement
"must provide residential services" would generate an additional
fiscal note, and whether it had been addressed.
MS. CAUSER believed it was addressed in the fiscal note, but
offered to follow up with the committee.
9:06:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed concern about the language
starting on page 3, line 9, "if a school district determines
that placement at the program is appropriate", and asked whether
parent should replace the term school district.
9:07:52 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD offered her belief that it was addressed in the
first part of the bill.
9:08:14 AM
MS. SAMUEL offered closing comments and said there is funding in
place through federal law, adding that [the bill] was not going
above what is already in federal law. She reiterated that the
bill would make things specific so that school districts are
more informed of what to do with kids who are deaf and hard of
hearing.
9:09:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY addressed the school districts funding
through IDEA, and shared her belief that many children who are
deaf do not receive the "intensive times 13" funding, due to the
intense criteria, including the need of an aide present at all
times. She offered her understanding that districts would
struggle to meet the need, and opined that more fiscal monies
should be with the bill.
MS. SAMUEL acknowledged the shortage of individual aides in the
districts. She explained that some children do not need one-on-
one aides; however, they need other supports, such as
environmental supports.
9:11:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY clarified that the funding that comes with
a full-time aide is needed in many cases.
MS. SAMUEL likened kids to bonds, indicating that an early
investment is going to make a difference. The bill would give
children the access they need to learn, she said.
9:12:19 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD related that she worked with Ms. Samuel on the
bill and she was an intricate part. She opined that no cost was
too high to establish education for all children, and believed
that no child is less important than another.
9:13:15 AM
RICHARD SAVILLE, Program Coordinator, Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education, testified in support of HB
111, and provided a summary of his role in the council, and
noted his position as vice chair for the Deaf Education Board.
He explained that 17 other states have passed similar
legislation, known as the deaf children's bill of rights [Bill
of Rights for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children]. He alluded to
a number of reasons, as laid out in the presentation by Ms.
Causer, to support the bill. He emphasized that the key idea
was parent and family choice. The bill, he said, would ensure
that all families of deaf and hard of hearing children
understand all the resources available to them. The
aspirational aspect of the bill, he said, is that in Alaska,
deaf and hard of hearing children would be treated as equals and
receive the support they need to fulfill their full potential.
9:18:42 AM
MR. SAVILLE wished to address questions from the committee, but
first pointed out that the statewide school for deaf and hard of
hearing is located in Anchorage, Alaska, and funded through both
the Anchorage School District and partially through the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). He
briefly explained how housing works for rural children. He
noted that he also works with SESA, as Representative Story had
touched on earlier in the hearing.
9:21:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX pointed out that some services provided
through the Anchorage School District meet some of the needs;
however, he asked for clarification on how much need is not
being met.
MR. SAVILLE replied that he could not provide an answer
currently. He reiterated that the funding is not only through
the Anchorage School District.
9:22:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether there is enough funding
being provided, and whether a larger fiscal note is needed. In
reference to the gaps in services mentioned by Representative
Prax, she asked for more clarification from Mr. Saville.
MR. SAVILLE stated that there are staffing shortages everywhere,
and anything that can be done to promote recruitment is
welcomed; however, he said he was not comfortable answering the
specific question on the needs of children not being met. He
offered to gather information and provide it to the committee at
a later date.
9:25:07 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD reported that the number of deaf and hard of
hearing children in Alaska was 149, adding that few people know
American Sign Language (ASL). She pointed out that in the bill,
a parent would be allowed to go into a child's classroom and
interpret.
9:25:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE shared with the committee that he had
read through the Guidance for Special Education Personnel [found
on DEED's website] and found a section on teachers with students
who are visually impaired or deaf, who have the primary
responsibility for planning educational programs. He
highlighted page 2, line 7 of the bill, which referenced
delivering services to deaf children. He shared his
understanding that the provision would codify a requirement that
was not being met into regulation. He asked how the state is
doing for the 149 deaf or hard of hearing individuals.
9:28:06 AM
MR. SAVILLE responded that he did not think the language in
Section 2 was any different. He asked Representative Ruffridge
to repeat his question.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE clarified that he was seeking clarity
on where Alaska stands in serving the 149 deaf and hard of
hearing students, and whether having a special school
specifically for the deaf and hard of hearing children would
fall outside what [educators] are already asked to do, which is
educate kids in the environment in which they live.
MR. SAVILLE believed that having the school is good because it
allows families to make the choice about what is best for their
children.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked how the state was doing in terms
of following the guidance for special education personnel, for
example.
MR. SAVILLE replied that he would look into specifics and get
back to the committee at a later date.
9:32:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked whether the 149 [deaf and hard of
hearing students] fell under the intensive needs portion of the
[Foundation Funding Formula] fully, partially, or not at all.
MR. SAVILLE replied that he did not have an answer to the
intensive needs portion formula, noting that DEED may better
speak to that question.
9:33:46 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked Mr. Saville whether he believed that
passing the proposed legislation could encourage schools to be
more willing to provide education to children who are deaf or
hard of hearing.
MR. SAVILLE shared his belief that statutes carried more weight.
CO-CHAIR ALLARD asked whether Mr. Enoch could respond to
Representative McKay's inquiry.
9:35:07 AM
DONALD ENOCH, Education Administrator, Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED), explained that it is a district
responsibility to submit whether they want the child's
individualized education plan (IEP) to be reviewed for intensive
funding. He added that students with hearing and visual
impairments that require specialized instruction are exempted
from the seven criteria that most intensive needs students
follow. He added that a full-time aide would be waived. He
confirmed that students considered deaf would still qualify for
the intensive funding under the category of "deafness."
9:36:33 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD thanked Mr. Enoch for his helpful input,
especially in regard to funding.
9:37:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented that the IEP "carries a lot
of weight" and people are responsive to it; nonetheless, she
said there was more to do.
9:37:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX referred to a previous testifier's story
about discovering the hearing loss of her child well before the
child's involvement in the education system. He said by
focusing only on the school district, many children may be
missed, and opined that assessments should be taken care of
through the Department of Health (DOH) for checkups and
detection to discover potential problems earlier.
9:39:21 AM
MR. SAVILLE agreed that there may be children missed between
birth and pre-school and encouraged a legislative solution to
that problem. He opined that including that language in the
bill could only have positive results.
9:40:20 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD related a personal anecdote about her daughter's
hearing issue, explaining that the discovery was made by a
school nurse. She stated that she does not doubt there are
still kids struggling with hearing loss, and emphasized the
importance of addressing it as early as possible.
9:41:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked Mr. Enoch to describe Child Find.
MR. ENOCH explained that Child Find is a federal requirement
that all school districts must participate in; however, not all
districts participate the same way. Larger districts may
participate on a monthly basis, and smaller districts on an as-
needed basis.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked what ages were covered through
Child Find, and whether hearing loss in a child would be
detected in a Child Find screening.
MR. ENOCH replied the ages for SPED services are typically 3 to
5 and could reach up to age 22.
9:43:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE offered his understanding that in order
for an IEP to qualify for intensive needs funding, a child would
need to require full time services of an interpreter. He
referred to Ms. Samuel's testimony about the technology that
allowed children to have their education given in multiple
language formats and do not always require an interpreter. He
asked whether there is a concern that individuals who don't need
one-on-one time, but still qualify as deaf or hard of hearing,
would not qualify for intensive needs funding.
MR. ENOCH responded that when intensive review files are being
done for students who require an interpreter at any point during
the day, that student would qualify for intensive funding.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE sought to confirm that a student who
required an interpreter only one day of the week would still
qualify for the intensive needs funding.
MR. ENOCH replied that the intensive funding reviews provide a
foundation for how the files are reviewed, and intensive reviews
have gone through many changes including regulatory changes. In
all circumstances, he said, and on the rare occasion where a
student requires an interpreter only once a week, the district
would be contacted and informed of a waiver process available to
them.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether a student who does not
require an interpreter would qualify for intensive needs
funding.
MR. ENOCH said that would be a district decision. He added that
the state does not require districts to ask for additional
funding, but most districts do. Based on criteria written in
the regulations in their practices, the student would qualify,
he said.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE focused on the 149 children identified
as deaf or hard of hearing in state and asked Mr. Enoch whether
he could give an estimate of the percentage of these individuals
who qualify for intensive needs funding.
MR. ENOCH confirmed that he could provide the answer at a later
date.
9:48:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether DEED had done any auditing or
conducted any studies to get an estimate of how many children
may be "falling through the cracks."
MR. ENOCH replied that is typically handled at the district
level through the Child Find process and referrals. The issue
is making sure the districts are aware of the Child Find
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked Mr. Enoch whether he had received any
complaints or indications from parents that school districts may
be aware of a need for services but are not providing said
services under the current system.
MR. ENOCH confirmed that he had received a number of complaints
from parents not satisfied with services being received at the
school district level; however, he offered his understanding
that none have been specific to deafness.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented on the general sense of the
complaints, and asked what DEED does as follow up procedures to
complaints.
MR. ENOCH explained that in the event of a compliant, the
district investigates, and all parties are spoken to.
Afterwards, he said, a report is generated for all levels and if
a district is in default, a corrective action would be issued.
9:51:25 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD opened public testimony on HB 111.
9:51:41 AM
HEATHER BATCHELDER, representing self, testified in support of
HB 111. Before testifying, she clarified that under Part C of
IDEA there are Child Find and early intervention services. She
stated that children who are deaf and hard of hearing are born
with the same ability to acquire language as any other child,
and they deserve the same opportunities to do so. All families
of deaf and hard of hearing students should have access to
appropriate early intervention, family education services, and
state resources.
9:55:06 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD ascertained that no one else wished to testify
and announced that she would leave public testimony open on HB
111.
9:56:13 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD invited questions and comments from committee
members.
9:56:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX commented that he would like to check with
the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District to get an idea
of what's going on from the boroughs perspective. He opined
that [the legislature] was rushing this proposal and needed to
hear more from DOH regarding well checks. He added that the
legislature should go slow and deliberate with the bill.
9:58:25 AM
MS. CAUSER echoed Mr. Savilles sentiments about statutes
holding more weight.
9:58:48 AM
CO-CHAIR ALLARD announced that HB 111 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 111 Letter of Support - Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bill of Rights.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| HB 111 LOS A2P2 - Help Me Grow Alaska.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| Hope - Support Letter.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111- Hope - Support Letter |
| HB111 CS.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| Hearing Request - HEC.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111 Hearing Request |
| Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111 Sectional Analysis |
| Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111 - Sponsor Statement |
| HB111 presentation.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| HB106 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB106- House Education Hearing Request.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB0106A.PDF |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB0106-Fiscal Note.PDF |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| HB0105A.PDF |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105- House Education Hearing Request 3-8-2023.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105-Fiscal Note.PDF |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Constituent Emails.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB111 - emails |
| HB111 testimony - Andrea Samuel.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 24.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 25.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 26.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 27.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 28.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 29.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 30.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 31.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| Public Testimony HB105 - April Packet 32.pdf |
HEDC 4/24/2023 8:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |