Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
02/10/2014 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB292 | |
| HB47 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 292 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 47-INJUNCTION SECURITY: INDUSTRIAL OPERATION
1:24:40 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 47, "An Act requiring a party seeking a
restraining order, preliminary injunction, or order vacating or
staying the operation of a permit affecting an industrial
operation to give security in the amount the court considers
proper for costs incurred and damages suffered if the industrial
operation is wrongfully enjoined or restrained."
1:24:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt proposed committee substitute
for HB 47, Version 28-LS0072\N, Bullock/Wallace, 1/10/14, as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purposes of discussion and
inquired as to the difference in Version N.
1:25:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
one of the prime sponsors of HB 47, said the only change
embodied in Version N is the addition of subsection (d) on page
2. The commissioner of the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) was very concerned that under the original
language of HB 47 the federal permitting programs for which the
state has primacy could be adversely affected in that the state
could be open to the possibility of having primacy
administratively retracted by the federal government. The new
language, he explained, exempts the federal permitting programs
that the state administers and over which it has primacy.
Therefore, there is not even a hint that this bill would prevent
access to the courts by other parties involved in those permits.
1:28:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the language on page
1, line 11, of HB 47 reads, "... including an amount for the
payment of wages ..." but was changed in Version N to read, "The
court shall consider the amount of wages," The new language in
Version N allows the court more discretion, which he
characterized as a good amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE agreed the aforementioned was also a change
and in further response to Representative Gruenberg said he and
his staff were not aware of any other changes.
1:29:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBER withdrew his objection.
1:29:41 PM
CHAIR KELLER then objected for purposes of discussion and
related his understanding that the language is new in Version N.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE clarified that the language on page 2, line
6-13, is new language, which pertains specifically to federal
permitting programs that are administered by the state
government.
1:30:56 PM
CHAIR KELLER removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Version N was before the committee.
1:31:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE, continuing his presentation of HB 47,
informed the committee that,
In the past several years there have been cases where
courts have issued injunctions or stays against
companies engaged in the development of resource
extraction and other large industrial operations that
had been legally permitted. These legally permitted
projects now have to endure the high costs of
uncertainty and delay. The discovery phase in these
types of cases can cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars to the state as well as the project
proponents. House Bill 47 does not condone "sloppily
written or wrongfully issued permits" as has been
described by some opponents of the bill. If a
permittee is violating the terms of the permit then
the issuing departments of the state should step in
and either get the situation rectified or temporarily
stop the project until it comes into compliance. The
state has laid out a rigorous science based permitting
system to allow responsible development of our
resources for the benefit of all Alaskans. Public
involvement and input is encouraged through an
established public process. Too often, once this
process has been completed and the permits are issued,
opponents of the project file public interest
litigation seeking an injunction or a stay.
Ultimately, those who feel the most immediate impacts
of these injunctions are the workers and their
families because workers are laid off, both union and
non-union.
1:33:21 PM
House Bill 47 was filed with intent to level the
playing field and put those who file these suits on
notice that they too have consequences to contend
with. Some people have pointed to the title of the
bill which uses the words "An Act requiring a party
..." The requirement for security is already there
embedded in Alaska Civil Rule 65(c). House Bill 47
parallels the requirements of Rule 65(c), which
states, "... No restraining order or preliminary
injunction shall issue except upon the giving of
security by the applicant, in such sum as the court
deems proper, for the payment of such costs and
damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party
who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or
restrained. ..." House Bill 47 was written to work
with Rule 65(c), not change it. The court already has
the power and authority to require a bond,
unfortunately, in most cases they don't require it.
This legislation directs the court, when considering
the bond amount, to take into account costs that may
be incurred and damages that may be suffered,
including an amount for the payment of wages and
benefits for employees, sub-contractors, and
contractors. It does not set a bond amount. The
court continues to have full discretion and could
still ultimately decide to not require a bond. In
this legislation, industrial operation is defined to
include a construction, energy or timber activity, and
oil, gas and mineral exploration development and
production. Historically, we have not seen a large
number of these types of injunctions in state court
for two reasons: most lawsuits today have involve
federal permits, and in talking with lawyers about
this issue, found that many of these cases are settled
out of court in an effort to avoid costs and work
delays.
1:35:24 PM
An example of this type of court case would be an
injunction filed on the Port Mackenzie Rail Extension
just as they were starting to commence construction in
the Fall of 2012. A lawsuit filed in federal court
which ordered a Stop Work Order on October 1, 2012,
eventually, later that Fall on November 28, 2012 that
same federal court lifted the order. But for two
months almost two hundred people were put out of work
and unable to feed their families. Here in Southeast
Alaska, fairly recently, the City and Borough of
Juneau permitted a cruise ship dock expansion. The
Juneau Assembly, last month, approved the contract.
It has already had a group file for a Temporary
Restraining Order to keep the city from working on the
project. Work is not even scheduled to begin until
2015. Of course, you are all aware that we have
fairly large projects potentially on our horizon. An
effort to build an instate gas line as well as an
export line would involve a whole series of mega
projects that could potentially be affected by someone
wanting to file an injunction. During the interim we
continued to work with the administration to deal with
some concerns that they had with respect to the
unintended consequences centering on the state
primacy, i.e., those permits related to clean air,
clean water and surface coal. I've detailed some of
the new language in Version N of the CS. The new
language specifically exempts those federal permit
programs that the state administers. It does not,
however, do anything to the over one hundred different
state permits that the state currently has permit
authorization authority for. The language will still
apply to those and a list of those permits has been
included in your packet.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGER advised the committee there were
representatives in the room from the Department of Natural
Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, the Alaska
Court System, Department of Law, and Legislative Legal available
for questions, and also a number of people online to testify.
1:38:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to what was the percentage of
injunctions filed in the state versus federal court.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE maintained that most of the injunctions
brought forth are in federal court. In further response to
Representative LeDoux, Representative Feige affirmed that HB 47
would not impact federal courts.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to how much assistance this
bill could provide projects.
1:39:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE clarified that HB 47 does not impact
federal courts as it is not in the state's arena of authority.
However, the possibility exists that plaintiffs could seek
injunctions under state court, which he opined is a
vulnerability within the state's legal structure. Although
Civil Rule 65(c) already requires security, the overwhelming
majority of judges do not appear willing to require parties to
post bonds. He said he did not know whether [the actions of the
judges] were the intent of the legislature or the intent of the
original rule. If HB 47 passes, the legislation would send a
significant message to the third branch of government that the
legislature encourages judges to look closely at requiring
security bonds, especially in cases like this. Regarding the
total number of court cases like this, he deferred to the court
system.
1:42:04 PM
CHAIR KELLER advised the committee it was not his intention for
the committee to vote on HB 47 today, as it had just received a
memorandum from Legal Services.
1:42:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the current language is a
definite improvement and asked Representative Feige if his staff
would make a copy of his presentation for his review.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE agreed to do so.
1:43:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted her appreciation for HB 47, which
she felt was a long time in coming as Alaska must make a
statement about frivolous lawsuits and actions taken to slow
down projects and cause projects to be more expensive. She said
Alaskans are not taking these actions rather it is non-
government organizations (NGO) from out-of-state that have found
a beautiful picturesque place like Alaska and use it as their
biggest fundraising tool in the Lower 48. Representative Millet
related that she is offended that Alaskans are being treated in
this manner.
1:44:42 PM
CHAIR KELLER advised the committee that Friday's meeting is
scheduled for bills previously heard, of which could include HB
47. He then turned to public testimony.
1:46:51 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, in speaking to
Representative LeDoux's earlier question, preliminary
injunctions are tracked, but there are not statistics on
preliminary injunctions against industrial operations as that is
not a term used in its data base yet. Anecdotally, she related
that over the last six or seven years there have been possibly
two or three cases that would fall into what the sponsor
intended to cover with HB 47. This bill is similar to CR 65(c)
as the courts do have authority to set the security. Many
times, she explained, parties will stipulate the amount of
security for various actions for preliminary injunction or TROs
and for the most part judges accept those stipulations. The
security is intended to cover the costs and damages that the
enjoined party might suffer if the injunction were wrongfully
granted. The court holds the security until the end of the case
and if the enjoined party should not have been enjoined, the
security can be used to pay the costs and damages that party
suffered.
1:48:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized the need for the committee
to carefully understand the language of CR 65 in order to
understand the legal issues involved in HB 47, which is what
will, if anything, be changed by HB 47. He then asked whether
the trial court has broad discretion in issuing injunctions.
MS. MEADE advised the trial court has discretion whether or not
to grant a motion for preliminary injunction, but there are
specific legal tests it must apply.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested Ms. Meade briefly enumerating
what the list of factors.
MS. MEADE expressed concern she would misstate them as they were
not written before her.
CHAIR KELLER requested Ms. Meade come prepared to discuss the
legal tests on Friday.
1:51:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he was not sure the court
system is the appropriate branch to answer that question, and
requested that staff from Legislative Legal and Research
Services be available on Friday. In response to Representative
Lynn, Representative Gruenberg explained that CR 65 covers the
following three types of injunctions, with the specified
meaning: temporary injunction is attending a hearing; a
preliminary injunction is after a hearing pending trial, and a
permanent injunction is covered by the rule of procedure. There
are also statutes on the subject, which he requested be included
in the committee's packet.
1:52:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that for state
permits if a party desired a TRO against the state, the party
would be against the state. For federal permits and the
category of permits for which the state has primacy, is
basically the federal program. However, a party cannot sue the
state in federal court. She then explored whether a party could
simply sue the industrial operation in federal court and not
include the state as a party.
MS. MEADE related her understanding that HB 47 addresses
injunctions filed against the industrial operation itself and
not against the state as the defending party to the injunction.
The intent, she opined, was to cover lawsuits in which a group
or individual wishes to stop the industrial operation from
proceeding and that group itself is the defendant/respondent,
and thus is enjoined. She specified that she had not understood
that the state would be a party to those actions, which could
take place in state or federal court.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised then that any lawsuit with any
federal element whatsoever could be brought in federal court.
MS. MEADE stated her agreement with Representative LeDoux.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cautioned the committee not to ask the
court system as this may be an issue that ultimately comes
before it.
1:56:06 PM
MAYNARD TAPP, Founder and Managing Member, Hawk Consultants,
LLC, Member, The Alliance, opined that delaying Alaskan projects
hurts The Alliance members, and therefore hurts workers that are
the employees of The Alliance. For example, a recent
cancelation of a project caused 70 people to lose their job in 1
company. Those 70 people earned $60,000 - $80,000 annually and
the loss of wages has a major impact on local communities.
Currently, there are approximately 180 jobs at risk on another
project in rural Alaska. The impact of those lost wages on
individuals as well as most communities would be staggering. If
a party desires to delay a project, it should be held
accountable for the financial harm caused by its actions, he
opined.
1:58:16 PM
MR. TAPP, in response to Representative Gruenberg advised he is
one of the principals for Hawk Consultants, LLC, which leases
personnel to oil companies.
1:59:03 PM
MICHAEL JUNGREIS, Director, Resource Development Council (RDC),
clarified that although he is a partner with Davis, Wright and
Tremaine, LLP, he is testifying on his own behalf and that of
the RDC. He related that the RDC favors this legislation and
emphasized the injunction power is the most powerful tool of the
court as it has the power to stop any activity from occurring in
the state. In a preliminary injunction, the court frequently
has only relatively sketchy factual materials available to it in
order to make a determination. A large scale enterprise, which
may be employing scores of hundreds of people and deploying
millions of dollars into a major economic activity in this
state, can be brought to a complete halt by the power judges can
impose. He related his experience that judges are reluctant to
impose the bonding requirement the law allows. Therefore, he
opined, it is important for the legislature to make it clear
that judges must consider the impact the decisions they make
have on individuals, the economy, and on the economic activity
they can stop.
2:01:56 PM
MR. JUNGREIS explained that the standard for granting an
injunction, which is in State Division of Elections v. Metcalf,
(Alaska 2005) and has been cited since 2005, is that if the
threatened injury is irreparable, meaning something that cannot
be brought back as in chopping down a forest or filling in a
lake, then all the plaintiff must do is raise "a serious and
substantial question" that is not frivolous or obviously without
merit. The bottom line is that a plaintiff who claims a serious
enough injury does not have to persuade the judge that the
plaintiff is going to win. In fact, the judge may conclude the
plaintiff is probably going to lose, but when it is not a
frivolous case a preliminary injunction must be granted, even on
partial knowledge. He opined that when judges have to grant an
injunction, it is critical that the injunction only be granted
with protection for the enterprises that are the life blood of
the state.
2:03:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the standards for granting a TRO
were less than for a preliminary injunction.
MR. JUNGREIS, noting that he had been practicing law in this
state for a while and had appeared in a number of cases in which
both preliminary and temporary injunctions were issued,
responded he was not certain but the TRO, which by its terms can
only be issued for a 10 day period, also requires security.
Information upon which a TRO is granted frequently consists of
an affidavit or two and rarely is there live testimony. As a
result, there are some judges who are extremely reluctant to
grant TROs unless there is something terrible going on like a
child who is about to be removed from the state or someone is
about to be taken off life support. This legislation, he
opined, would apply to a TRO in an industrial permitting
situation.
2:05:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that for a
preliminary injunction a party has to show a likelihood of
success on the merits as opposed to simply showing that it is
not a frivolous lawsuit. However, she said she was not certain
that a party had to show the likelihood of success with a TRO as
it is maybe a more lax standard.
MR. JUNGREIS conveyed the current standard is in two parts
depending upon the severity of injury that the plaintiff claims.
If the plaintiff's injury is not claimed to be all that severe
or if it is claimed to be less than irreparable, the plaintiff
must present a clear showing of probable success on the merits.
In that instance, the judge would be required to believe the
plaintiff was going to win before issuing the injunction. There
is a "lessened" standard for which the harm that is alleged is
of a greater amount. If a plaintiff is claiming the neighbor is
going to block the driveway, the plaintiff must show it is
probably going to win. If a plaintiff asserts the injury is
irreparable, such as filling in a lake or chopping down a
forest, the plaintiff is not required to show it is likely to
win, but rather must show the case is not frivolous.
2:08:28 PM
MR. JUNGREIS, in response to Representative Gruenberg; suggested
the committee [consult] the following cases: State, Division of
Elections v. Metcalf, 110 P.3d 976 (Alaska 2005); Misyura v
Misyura, 244 P.3d 519 (Alaska 2010). In further response, Mr.
Jungreis offered that the court is considering the seriousness
of the injury, whether the defendant can be protected if the
[injunction] is granted, and whether the court can be certain
the defendant is not injured if the injunction turns out to have
been granted in error. The aforementioned, he opined, is the
purpose of HB 47. The other issue is how good of a case has the
plaintiff presented to require an injunction. Although it's
likely the duration is an element that would be taken into
account in assessing all of the factors, he was not certain it
would be a separate factor.
2:12:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, questioned whether the legislation
could simply provide this as a factor to be considered rather
than specifying out hard and fast rules that may cause
constitutional problems.
MR. JUNGREIS said that the court has to consider the factors,
but [the ultimate decision] is for the court to determine. The
court must be able to show it reviewed every factor and
understood those were critical factors that must be taken into
consideration, although the factors do not absolutely control
the decision. This legislation does not attempt to specify
dollar for dollar exactly how the court must determine the
issue, he stated.
2:14:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the denial of a TRO or
preliminary injunction, or the amount of bond the court requires
to be posted is appealable. If it is appealable, is it
appealable on an expedited basis, she asked.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered that [denial and amount of
bond is absolutely appealable].
MR. JUNGREIS agreed with Representative Gruenberg that certainly
in every legal system, the failure to grant or the granting of
injunctive relief all give rise to an immediate right to appeal.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised the technical term for the
process would be "Petition for Review."
MR. JUNGREIS answered that he was not certain of that term but
offered that there is no question a party has the right to
Petition for Review for any interlocutory order. Clearly, a
party has a right to appeal, but he was uncertain whether the
court must hear the appeal.
MS. MEADE agreed with Representative Gruenberg that the denial
or granting of the order would be a Petition for Review and
would definitely be allowable by a court above the trial level.
In further response to Representative Gruenberg, Ms. Meade
confirmed injunctions must be brought in the superior court and
not the district court. If the decision is appealed, it first
goes to a single justice, and then can be reviewed by the entire
court. Appeals, she clarified, are not expedited per se and
they are not in the rule regarding which proceedings are
automatically expedited. However, Petitions for Review can be
handled faster than an appeal on a full case, she pointed out.
2:18:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted her understanding whether or not a
court heard a Petition for Review was discretionary.
MS. MEADE agreed with Representative LeDoux. She further agreed
with Representative LeDoux that a party has the right to file a
[Petition for Review], but that doesn't mean the court will do
anything about it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG provided that if that is the case, that
unless and until the court issued a superseding order on appeal
the trial court's original order would remain in effect.
MS. MEADE agreed with Representative Gruenberg.
2:19:34 PM
MS. MEADE directed attention to the following language in
Version N on page 1, line 11: "The court shall consider the
amount of wages and benefits for employees and payments to
contractors and subcontractor ..." She suggested it might be
beneficial to use the following language: "Upon the request of
any party and when that party presents credible evidence ..."
because if the industrial operation does not want to disclose
records about its wages or its contracts or subcontractors, the
court would not have evidence to consider. With the
aforementioned suggested language the court has to consider this
because otherwise it would not have the means or information to
consider those factors. The sponsor, she related, was receptive
to including such language.
2:20:46 PM
CHAIR KELLER directed the sponsor to be prepared on Friday with
language for discussion on that matter.
MS. MEADE informed the committee the language would be provided
to the committee.
2:21:35 PM
MIKE PRAX state that the [suggested language] change to
"something the court shall consider" rather than just "do," is
needed. This legislation, he opined, is necessary as it does
appear that injunctions are granted too easily. Furthermore,
the committee should know how often injunctions are overturned,
he opined. He related that he followed the Healy Clean Coal
Project for which tens of millions of dollars a year to the
members of Golden Valley [Electric Association GVEA] were lost,
which he acknowledged would not be considered. Objections to
Healy Clean Coal, he opined, were without merit from the start
and it appeared the injunction strategy was to run the costs up
so GVEA would give up on the project regardless of the merits of
the case. He further opined that the aforementioned happens
often as it is a strategy attorneys apply sometimes. This
legislation is needed to maintain equity, which should be a
primary goal and focus of the committee. Mr. Prax said he had
not given thought to Section 1(d), which will not require it
under cases in which the state is acting with primacy over
federal regulations. He encouraged the committee to contact the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or someone
in the federal government to obtain their opinions directly. He
proffered that State agencies are often overly conservative in
their interpretation of these laws and too concerned, therefore,
about losing primacy. He was not sure that the EPA and the
Department of Natural Resources would object to this legislation
to the degree that it would withdraw primacy. The fact that a
party has issued a court action, by itself, discourages a
company from moving forward, and thus he did not see harm in
maintaining equity.
2:26:31 PM
CHAIR KELLER said he identified with Mr. Prax's remarks
regarding the state needing to be overly cautious with what the
federal programs require, and he advised the legislature must
stay on top of it at all times.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed the need to consider the high
cost of litigation and how the party with deep pockets can make
it difficult for the other party to be heard. If the desire is
for equity, he suggested the committee consider what it can do
to ensure the law is not misused.
2:28:29 PM
MR. JUNGREIS remarked that he and the Resource Development
Council believe something on this order is critical to ensure
that the projects, which are the life blood of this state, are
protected from this particular type of disruption.
2:29:24 PM
ANDY ROGERS, Deputy Director, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
informed the committee that the Alaska State Chamber (Chamber)
is a member organization made up of companies across the state
and these types of injunctions are an ever-occurring issue for
the Chamber. The business community supports passage of this
bill and when legislation receives universal support and
agreement from across the state and across a broad section of
industries, it carries weight. The Chamber will continue to
support the core concepts of this legislation. The Chamber went
on record on behalf of Alaska's businesses and encouraged the
committee to pass this legislation out of committee.
2:31:23 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced he would leave public testimony open.
2:32:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained there is a body of law on
injunctions and the committee should review the background upon
which this bill is presented.
CHAIR KELLER announced his intent to take a vote on the bill on
Friday. [HB 47 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 292 ver. C.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB 292 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB 292 Proposed Amendment C.1.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB 292 Fiscal Note~Law.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 292 |
| HB 47 Sponsor Statement 2014.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB0047A.pdf |
HJUD 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| CSHB47 ver. N Draft.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| CSHB47 ver. N~Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Testimony List.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note~Court System 2014.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note~DEC Air Quality 2014.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note~DEC Water Quality 2014.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note~DNR 2014.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Fiscal Note~Law 2014.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| AK Chamber of Commerce Support.pdf |
HJUD 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Support Document~DEC Authorizations & Permits.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Support Document~DNR Permits.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |
| HB 47 Support Document~Leg. Legal Memo.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 47 |