Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519

05/17/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 10 Minutes Following Session --
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 70                                                                                                             
     "An  Act   making  appropriations,   including  capital                                                                    
     appropriations,     reappropriations,     and     other                                                                    
     appropriations;  making   supplemental  appropriations;                                                                    
     making   appropriations   to  capitalize   funds;   and                                                                    
     providing for an effective date."                                                                                          
4:01:58 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Merrick    relayed that  the  committee  heard  an                                                                    
overview of  HB 70 on May  4, 2021. She shared  that she had                                                                    
been working  closely with Senator Click  Bishop's office to                                                                    
craft the capital budget.                                                                                                       
Co-Chair  Foster  MOVED  to  ADOPT  the  proposed  committee                                                                    
substitute  for  HB  70, Work  Draft  32-GH1507\G  (Dunmire,                                                                    
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.                                                                                       
Co-Chair   Merrick    explained   that   the    budget   was                                                                    
significantly different  than the governor's proposed  FY 22                                                                    
capital budget.                                                                                                                 
Representative Josephson  asked if the changes  included the                                                                    
governor's amendments.                                                                                                          
4:03:23 PM                                                                                                                    
TALLY  TEAL, STAFF,  REPRESENTATIVE KELLY  MERRICK, answered                                                                    
that  she  would  point  out  when  she  was  comparing  the                                                                    
Committee  Substitute  (CS)  to the  governors   amended  or                                                                    
original budget.                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Merrick relayed  that  the meeting  was a  general                                                                    
overview and would not focus on individual projects.                                                                            
Ms.  Teal  pointed  to four  reports  from  the  Legislative                                                                    
Finance  Division in  members' packets  (copy on  file). The                                                                    
reports were labeled  1 through 4. She began  with the first                                                                    
report  [report 1]  showing  the  unrestricted general  fund                                                                    
(UGF)  expenditures  by  capital  budget  agency  summary                                                                       
governor structure  compared to  the CS. She  indicated that                                                                    
the CS  spent roughly $325  million in UGF compared  to $120                                                                    
million  in the  governors  original  budget. She  explained                                                                    
that  the  governor  had   used  2  non-traditional  funding                                                                    
sources  in   the  original  budget  that   the  legislature                                                                    
rejected. The governor proposed  using $86 million of Alaska                                                                    
Housing Finance  Corporation (AHFC)  bonds for  aviation and                                                                    
highway matching funds for  the Department of Transportation                                                                    
and  Public  Facilities.  In  addition,  he  proposed  using                                                                    
approximately  $18   million  of  the  Village   Safe  Water                                                                    
matching   funds  from   the  Department   of  Environmental                                                                    
Conservation (DEC) totaling $104  million in AHFC bonds. She                                                                    
furthered  that there  had been  $10.5 million  appropriated                                                                    
from  the  rural Power  Cost  Equalization  (PCE) funds  for                                                                    
rural  fuel projects.  Without the  non-traditional sources,                                                                    
the governors   proposed UGF spend  was about  $224 million.                                                                    
She  indicated that  the governor  proposed  a $350  million                                                                    
general obligation  (GO) bond package  in HB 93  [HB 93-G.O.                                                                    
Bonds: State Infrastructure  Projects] for capital projects.                                                                    
Many projects  in the  GO bond  bill had  been moved  to the                                                                    
capital budget.                                                                                                                 
4:06:11 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Teal turned  to  report 2  showing  the capital  budget                                                                    
agency  summary    governor structure  all funding  sources.                                                                    
She  pointed to  column 4  comparing the  governors  amended                                                                    
budget to  the House  CS and reported  that $101  million of                                                                    
the  GO bond  funding was  removed and  $620 million  was an                                                                    
increase  in federal  receipt authority  but  was not   new                                                                     
funding.  She  explained  that the  committee  had  heard  a                                                                    
presentation  on  the Statewide  Transportation  Improvement                                                                    
Program  (STIP)  and  reminded  the  committee  of  the  two                                                                    
methods the  state could provide funding  for STIP projects.                                                                    
She  elaborated that  one option  was to  give one  lump sum                                                                    
appropriation; it  did not  provide legislative  oversite of                                                                    
how the  funding was  spent. The other  option was  to break                                                                    
the appropriations  into allocations  to show  what projects                                                                    
the department planned on funding  with the STIP. Prior STIP                                                                    
funding had been done both ways  and the CS version chose to                                                                    
use allocations with some   modifications.  The method added                                                                    
two  accounts: a  project acceleration  fund  and a  project                                                                    
contingency  fund. They  were separate  pots  of money  that                                                                    
allowed  for  administrative  flexibility  while  setting  a                                                                    
 more realistic  amount for each  of the appropriations. She                                                                    
stressed  that the  funding was  structured differently  and                                                                    
was  not an  increase for  the Department  of Transportation                                                                    
and Public Facilities (DOT).                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about  the project acceleration fund.                                                                    
Ms. Teal  answered that it  was in the numbers  section. She                                                                    
restated  that the  reason the  federal authority  total was                                                                    
higher was due to the new funding structure.                                                                                    
Representative  Thompson  asked  if   there  was  a  listing                                                                    
showing which  items were different than  the original bill.                                                                    
Ms.  Teal replied  in  the affirmative  and  noted that  the                                                                    
information  was  in  report  3.  She  turned  to  report  3                                                                    
containing  the Capital  Budget project  detail by  agency                                                                      
governor  structure.  She  noted  that  the  documents  were                                                                    
available  online. She  explained that  column 1  showed the                                                                    
governor's amended  budget, column 2 was  the Senate version                                                                    
CS, column 3  reflected the House CS, column  4 compared the                                                                    
governors  budget  to the  House CS,  and column  5 compared                                                                    
the  House  CS to  the  Senate  CS.  She highlighted  a  few                                                                    
projects.  She  pointed  to the  West  Susitna  Road  Access                                                                    
Project on page  1, that was originally in the  GO bond bill                                                                    
and was  funded at the  governor's request in the  amount of                                                                    
$8.5  million. She  moved to  page 2  and reported  that the                                                                    
Alaska  Travel Industry  Association  (ATIA) was  originally                                                                    
funded at $5  million but the funding was  eliminated in the                                                                    
CS  because of  funding from  the American  Rescue Plan  Act                                                                    
(ARPA) dedicated to tourism. She  referred to the $1 million                                                                    
appropriation for the  Matanuska-Susitna Arctic Winter Games                                                                    
and noted that it was not  in the governors  request but was                                                                    
included in the CS.                                                                                                             
4:11:12 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Wool  asked  if  the  Voice  of  the  Arctic                                                                    
appropriation  on  page 2  was  in  the governors   original                                                                    
request. Ms.  Teal replied  that the  increment had  been in                                                                    
the governor's amended budget.                                                                                                  
Ms. Teal turned  to page 6 and cited two  Department of Fish                                                                    
and  Game (DFG)  projects that  had not  been funded  in the                                                                    
capital budget  process the previous year.  The projects had                                                                    
been   included   in   HB  69   [HB   69-Approp:   Operating                                                                    
Budget/Loans/Funds]  [the  operating  budget] and  were  not                                                                    
included in the current CS.                                                                                                     
Vice-Chair  Ortiz  asked  what  specific  projects  she  was                                                                    
referring to that were not  included. Ms. Teal answered that                                                                    
the projects were the Pacific  Salmon Treaty Chinook Fishery                                                                    
Mitigation  and    the  Wildlife  Management,  Research  and                                                                    
Hunting Access projects.                                                                                                        
Representative  Josephson  cited  the  Wildlife  Management,                                                                    
Research  and Hunting  Access project  on page  6. He  asked                                                                    
whether  it   had  been  included  in   the  current  years                                                                     
operating budget.  Ms. Teal answered in  the affirmative and                                                                    
reminded the committee that  supplemental capital items were                                                                    
included in the operating budget.                                                                                               
4:13:27 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Teal turned  to page  8  and pointed  to the  Statewide                                                                    
Deferred  Maintenance, Renovation,  and  Repair project  and                                                                    
noted  that the  appropriation was  slightly lower  than the                                                                    
governor's  request  due  to the  amount  available  in  the                                                                    
Alaska   Capital  Income   Fund.  She   moved  to   page  9,                                                                    
referencing the Fairbanks Youth Facility  that had been a GO                                                                    
bond project. She noted the  facility was not funded by UGF.                                                                    
She  thought  that  LFD  would  be  best  to  speak  to  the                                                                    
specifics. She  understood that  through a  bond refinancing                                                                    
$18  million   became  available  for  a   capital  project,                                                                    
therefore, the  governor chose to appropriate  the funds for                                                                    
the youth facility.                                                                                                             
Representative Rasmussen looked at  the 1167 fund source and                                                                    
asked what fund it was.                                                                                                         
ALEXEI  PAINTER,  DIRECTOR,  LEGISLATIVE  FINANCE  DIVISION,                                                                    
explained that  tobacco bonds had originally  been sold from                                                                    
the  proceeds  of  a  lawsuit  two  decades  earlier,  which                                                                    
capitalized  the Northern  Tobacco  Security Corporation,  a                                                                    
subsidiary  of   the  Alaska  Housing   Finance  Corporation                                                                    
(AHFC).  The tobacco  corporation  needed  to refinance  its                                                                    
debt, or it  could become insolvent in the  coming years due                                                                    
to  the decline  in  tobacco sales.  He  elucidated that  to                                                                    
obtain a  better rate on  the refinancing of the  tax exempt                                                                    
bond  the  proceeds could  be  appropriated  to a  qualified                                                                    
capital project under Internal  Revenue Service (IRS) rules.                                                                    
The  proceeds   were  estimated  to  be   $18  million.  The                                                                    
governor  had selected  the youth  facility because  it cost                                                                    
$18  million,  which  was  a  criterion  for  obtaining  the                                                                    
4:16:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson had  further  questions about  the                                                                    
wildlife access research  and hunting project on  page 6. He                                                                    
asked about  the $10  million. Mr.  Painter deferred  to the                                                                    
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the answer.                                                                           
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE  OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,                                                                    
OFFICE  OF THE  GOVERNOR,  stated his  understanding of  the                                                                    
question related to  the project for $10 million  on page 6.                                                                    
He replied  that the funding  was either the  Dingle Johnson                                                                    
or  Pittman  Robertson  federal  funding  for  wildlife  and                                                                    
hunting access  projects. He reported  that the  project was                                                                    
not  related  to  the   navigability  or  statehood  defense                                                                    
project.  The  project  was  the  annual  recurring  capital                                                                    
program through DFG that built  out hunting access projects.                                                                    
Due  to  a   truncated  session  in  the   prior  year,  the                                                                    
department had  not received the  funds and it  was included                                                                    
in the  supplemental. The administration  moved some  of the                                                                    
wildlife  management  activity   funds  into  the  operating                                                                    
budget because of the characteristics of the appropriation.                                                                     
4:18:31 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Josephson  reasoned   that  the  transaction                                                                    
appeared typical and perfunctory and was not unique.                                                                            
Representative   Wool  asked   about  the   Fairbanks  Youth                                                                    
Facility capital  upgrade to an existing  facility. He asked                                                                    
which youth  facility it was.  Mr. Steininger  answered that                                                                    
it was the Juvenile Justice facility in Fairbanks.                                                                              
Vice-Chair Ortiz  asked about the  $10 million  for wildlife                                                                    
hunting access.  He asked  if there was  a breakdown  of the                                                                    
$10 million  expenditure. Mr.  Steininger answered  that DFG                                                                    
posted  the   solicitations  for  the  spending   after  the                                                                    
appropriation   was   made.   He  relayed   that   currently                                                                    
historical allocations were available.                                                                                          
Representative  Rasmussen stated  it  was her  understanding                                                                    
that the  project funding utilized federal  receipts and not                                                                    
UGF. Mr.  Steininger answered in  the affirmative  and added                                                                    
that  receipts from  hunting licenses  (Fish and  Game Fund)                                                                    
were used as matching funds.                                                                                                    
4:20:42 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Teal  moved to  page 9, under  the Department  of Health                                                                    
and Social  Services and cited  the Palmer Pioneer  Home and                                                                    
Veteran's  Home roof  replacement  increment. She  indicated                                                                    
that the project was originally in  the GO Bond bill and was                                                                    
included  in the  CS.  She  moved to  page  11 and  directed                                                                    
attention  to the  $12.5 million  line item  for the  Alaska                                                                    
Vocational  Technical Center  (AVTEC), which  was originally                                                                    
in  the  GO  Bond  legislation. She  communicated  that  the                                                                    
appropriation  was  originally  $19.5  million  but  it  was                                                                    
discovered  that  the  reduced amount  was  sufficient.  She                                                                    
advanced   to  page   12  and   referenced  the   Prosecutor                                                                    
Recruitment  and  Housing  to  Address  Sexual  Assault  and                                                                    
Sexual Abuse  of a Minor  Case Backlog project.  The project                                                                    
had originally been a supplemental  request and was included                                                                    
in the CS. She moved  to the Department of Natural Resources                                                                    
(DNR)  on page  15.  She listed  the  following 4  projects:                                                                    
Wildland  Firefighting Aircraft  Replacement, Wildland  Fire                                                                    
Engine   Replacement,   Statewide   Firebreak   Construction                                                                    
Program,  and the  Statewide  Park  Sanitation and  Facility                                                                    
Upgrades. She  relayed that they  were all initially  in the                                                                    
GO  Bond  package.  She  pointed to  one  new  project;  the                                                                    
Snowmobile Trail  Development Program and Grants,  which was                                                                    
not  included in  the governor's  original  request but  was                                                                    
included in the CS.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Merrick  believed  that  it was  called  the  Snow                                                                    
Tracks Program. Ms. Teal affirmed the statement.                                                                                
Ms.  Teal  referenced  the last  two  DNR  projects;  Alaska                                                                    
Wildlife Troopers Marine  Enforcement Repair and Replacement                                                                    
and Boating Upgrades, Haul Outs,  and Vessel Replacement and                                                                    
noted that they were originally GO Bond projects.                                                                               
4:22:58 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Teal turned the  Department of Transportation and Public                                                                    
Facilities (DOT)  projects, which accounted for  the bulk of                                                                    
the numbers section.                                                                                                            
Co-Chair Merrick  asked members  to contact her  office with                                                                    
specific questions regarding DOT.                                                                                               
Representative Josephson  looked at page 15  and asked about                                                                    
the  Arctic Strategic  Transportation  and Resource  Project                                                                    
(ASTAR)  project. He  wondered  whether it  was a  permanent                                                                    
appropriation item.                                                                                                             
Mr.  Steininger answered  that the  ASTAR  project had  been                                                                    
appropriated  in  phases  over  recent  years.  It  was  not                                                                    
permanent but  was a recurring project  requiring additional                                                                    
distinct funding.                                                                                                               
Representative  Edgmon asked  about projects  that were  not                                                                    
included.   He  asked   why  the   Alaska  Travel   Industry                                                                    
Association (ATIA)  project had been removed.  He understood                                                                    
that  the  ARPA  funding  was different  than  the  original                                                                    
appropriation  for marketing.  Ms.  Teal stated  it was  her                                                                    
understanding  that  the ARPA  funds  would  cover the  same                                                                    
expenses.  She  added  that the  original  funding  was  the                                                                    
vehicle  rental  tax  and  with  the  tourism  downturn  the                                                                    
receipts were likely insufficient.                                                                                              
4:25:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Painter interjected that  the administration directed $5                                                                    
million in  Coronavirus Aid,  Relief, and  Economic Security                                                                    
(CARES) Act funding to ATIA  for marketing Alaska as a COVID                                                                    
safe  tourism destination.  The House  added $10  million to                                                                    
ATIA from ARPA  funding as well. The funding may  not be for                                                                    
traditional  tourism  marketing  but $15  million  had  been                                                                    
directed to ATIA.                                                                                                               
Ms. Teal  pointed to  page 38 related  to two  University of                                                                    
Alaska (UA) projects and noted  that they were originally GO                                                                    
bond projects [UAA Building  Energy Performance Upgrades and                                                                    
Bartlett  and   Moore  Hall  Modernization:   Restrooms  and                                                                    
Sanitation Infrastructure].  She underlined that  the Courts                                                                    
Statewide Deferred  Maintenance item on  page 39 was  also a                                                                    
GO  bond project.  She  commented that  her  remarks on  the                                                                    
numbers  section, Section  1  of the  CS  was complete.  She                                                                    
briefly  described Section  2  as a  summary  of funding  in                                                                    
Section  1 by  agency  and Section  3  as listing  statewide                                                                    
funding by fund source.                                                                                                         
4:26:44 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Teal  reported that the  language section of  the budget                                                                    
began in  Section 4, on page  33 of the CS.  She highlighted                                                                    
that  Sections 7  through Section  10 were  reappropriations                                                                    
from agencies to the Alaska Capital Income Fund.                                                                                
4:28:22 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:29:12 PM                                                                                                                    
4:29:51 PM                                                                                                                    
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
4:30:33 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. Painter clarified that in  Section 4 the typical revised                                                                    
program  receipt   language  [Revised   Program  Legislative                                                                    
(RPL)]  referencing  AS  37.05.146(a),   (b),  and  (c)  was                                                                    
typical.  He noted  that in  subsection (e)  on page  33 the                                                                    
language  was  unusual.  He  explained  that  it  prohibited                                                                    
increasing   receipts  received   by   the  Alaska   Gasline                                                                    
Development  Corporation  (AGDC)  and was  included  in  the                                                                    
Senate version  of the bill.  He elaborated that (e)  (1) on                                                                    
page 33,  the Coronavirus  Response and  Relief Supplemental                                                                    
Appropriations  Act (CRRSAA)  funds  for  DOT were  excluded                                                                    
from the RPL  process. He turned to page 34,  Section 2 that                                                                    
listed  the  Coronavirus  State and  Local  Fiscal  Recovery                                                                    
Funds,  in  ARPA  as  excluded  from  the  RPL  process.  In                                                                    
addition, he read  the following that was  excluded from the                                                                    
RPL process:                                                                                                                    
     (3)funds appropriated by the 117 Congress                                                                                  
          (A) for infrastructure, jobs, or part of the                                                                          
               American Jobs Plan, as proposed by the                                                                           
               President of the United States, or a similar                                                                     
               bill or plan;                                                                                                    
          (B)  related to novel coronavirus disease (Covid-                                                                     
               19) or economic recovery; or                                                                                     
          (C) for natural gas pipeline expenditures.                                                                            
Mr.  Painter  noted  that subsection  (f)  stated  that  the                                                                    
exclusions  did not  apply to  prior authorizations  made in                                                                    
January 2021.                                                                                                                   
Representative  Josephson  asked   if  any  federal  funding                                                                    
received after  session ended and before  the coming special                                                                    
session  on August  2,  2021, could  not  be expended  until                                                                    
August 2. Mr. Painter answered  that the funds could also be                                                                    
appropriated in the coming special  session beginning on May                                                                    
20, 2021.                                                                                                                       
4:33:20 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Teal  turned to Section 5,  on page 34 of  the bill. She                                                                    
offered  that the  language was  standard language  that was                                                                    
omitted in the  prior year. Section 6  was standard language                                                                    
related  to  the  Natural  Petroleum  Reserve-Alaska  (NPRA)                                                                    
impact   grants.  She   reiterated  the   prior  information                                                                    
regarding  Section  7  through  Section  10.  She  moved  to                                                                    
Section  11  and  commented  that   the  item  had  been  an                                                                    
operating item  that was  moved to  the capital  budget. She                                                                    
pointed out that  Section 12 through Section  14 returned to                                                                    
reappropriations   to   the   Capital   Income   Fund.   She                                                                    
communicated that Section 15 through  Section 23 on pages 42                                                                    
through page  46 included reappropriations  within districts                                                                    
from lapsing  grant funds from  the Department  of Commerce,                                                                    
Community and  Economic Development  (DCCED). She  turned to                                                                    
page  46, Sections  24  through Section  26  and noted  they                                                                    
contained lapsing language and effective dates.                                                                                 
Co-Chair Merrick  asked if there  was anything  to highlight                                                                    
on report 4.                                                                                                                    
Ms.   Teal   identified   report   4   that   included   the                                                                    
reappropriations   within  district   [Section  15   through                                                                    
Section  23] and  noted  they matched  the  language in  the                                                                    
Senate CS version.                                                                                                              
Representative Josephson  cited report  1 that showed  a UGF                                                                    
spend  of  $324.6 million.  He  asked  what  it did  to  the                                                                    
surplus of a  similar amount. Mr. Painter  answered that the                                                                    
House's operating  budget included  some fund  changes using                                                                    
ARPA  dollars for  debt service  that was  discovered to  be                                                                    
unallowable.  The surplus  had  included  fund changes  that                                                                    
could  not  occur.  However,  the  same  amount  of  revenue                                                                    
replacement might be  applied to other areas  of the budget.                                                                    
He remembered  that the amount  of surplus was enough  for a                                                                    
$500  PFD assuming  the  capital budget  was  closer to  the                                                                    
governors  version.  The CS version was  $150 million higher                                                                    
so the  surplus would  be that much  less. However,  how the                                                                    
ARPA funds could be spent  was a moving target therefore, it                                                                    
was difficult to compare the Houses budget to a surplus.                                                                        
Co-Chair Merrick reminded the  committee that unique funding                                                                    
sources  were used  originally in  the  capital budget  that                                                                    
once removed, inflated the House CS.                                                                                            
Representative Wool  deduced that  the House CS  compared to                                                                    
the Senate CS and was  $155 million higher. In addition, the                                                                    
House CS  versus governors  version was  $200 million higher                                                                    
and  the  ARPA  funding  added $200  million  to  the  House                                                                    
budget. He  noted that the  Senate operating  budget numbers                                                                    
were currently  unknown, therefore  the residual  amount was                                                                    
unknown.  Mr. Painter  was  not prepared  to  speak about  a                                                                    
fiscal summary on the fly.                                                                                                      
4:38:45 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Ortiz referenced  Mr. Painter's  mention of  the                                                                    
recently  released   ARPA  guidelines.   He  asked   if  the                                                                    
committee  would hear  a summary  about  how the  guidelines                                                                    
changed in  relation to the  budgeting process.  Mr. Painter                                                                    
answered  that  the new  information  was  improved, and  he                                                                    
believed  the committee  would hear  from Mr.  Steininger on                                                                    
the updates.                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Merrick  WITHDREW her OBJECTION to  the adoption of                                                                    
the CS.                                                                                                                         
There  being  NO  OBJECTION,   Work  Draft  32-GH1507|G  was                                                                    
HB  70  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
Co-Chair  Merrick reviewed  the schedule  for the  following                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 202 Fiscal Model Output REVISED (002).pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 202
HB 202 Public Testimony by 051621.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 202
HB 202 Flowchart.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 202
HB 202 Sectional Analysis 5.5.2021.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 202
HB 202 Sponsor Statement 5.5.2021.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 202
HB 70 Agency Summary HSC1 All Funds.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 70
HB 70 AgencySummary HCS1 UGF Only.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 70
HB 70 HCS WorkDraft vG.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 70
HB 70 ProjectDetailByAgency HCS1 Supplemental Items Compare to Senate SCS1.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 70
HB 70 ProjectDetailByAgency HCS1 Compare to Gov Amend Total.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 70
HB 70 Public Testimony by 051921.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 70
HB 202 Public Testimony by 051921.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 202
HB 202 Public Testimony by 052121.pdf HFIN 5/17/2021 1:30:00 PM
HB 202