Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/18/2024 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB146 | |
| SCR3 | |
| HB265 | |
| HB286 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SCR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 265 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 286-CRIME VICTIM RESTITUTION
4:23:38 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 286(STA) "An Act relating
to victim restitution and compensation."
4:24:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JULIE COULOMBE, District 11, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 286. She delivered
the sponsor statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sponsor Statement
HB 286 Crime Victim Restitution
(33-LS1012\S)
House Bill 286 seeks to make a clarification in the
current Alaska statute regarding victim restitution
for crimes. Currently, AS 12.55.045(a) allows the
court to order a defendant convicted of a crime to
make restitution to the victim of that crime for
injuries related to counseling, medical, or shelter
services. However, the statute does not provide much
clarity on what type of services would qualify,
resulting in fewer prosecutors asking for that
particular type of restitution. HB 286 would clarify
that lost income, child care, elder care,
transportation, or any other expenses incurred during
the victim's participation in legal action related to
the case (such as the investigation or prosecution),
would be eligible for restitution.
HB 286 will strengthen the ability of victims to
receive compensation for costs related to their time
spent in court, and make it more difficult for
convicted defendants to appeal restitution payment for
the costs that their actions have inflicted on the
victim. This is particularly relevant to cases
involving domestic violence, as the continuation of
court cases involving restitution can result in a
perpetuation of the cycle of abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE noted that HB 286 originated from
discussions with the Office of Victims' Rights during the
interim. The office had expressed frustrations in securing
specific restitution for victims, leading to the creation of
this legislation. She said her office worked closely with the
Department of Law (DOL) and the courts to refine the bill's
language. She added that representatives from DOL and the courts
were present to answer questions from the committee. She shared
that her staff member, Jordan Wright, could deliver a
presentation or a sectional analysis of the bill, depending on
the chair's preference.
4:25:39 PM
JORDAN WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Julie Coulombe, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented on HB 286. He moved
to slide 2 and described the Office of Victims' Rights, which
operates similarly to an inspector general's office. As part of
the legislative branch, it is designed to avoid potential
conflicts with other state offices. He described the office's
role in advocating for victims in court and investigating any
complaints they have. The office collaborates with various
criminal justice organizations to gather and share information.
He clarified that the Office of Victims' Rights is funded
through forfeited Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) checks from
convicted criminals, as outlined in AS 43.23.005.
4:26:42 PM
MR. WRIGHT moved to slide 3 and described statute changes under
HB 286. He explained that HB 286 aims to clarify the current
statute, making it easier for prosecutors to secure compensation
for victims for various expenses incurred due to their
involvement in legal proceedings. These expenses may include
lost income, childcare, transportation, or any costs related to
attending court or participating in an investigation.
4:27:13 PM
MR. WRIGHT moved to slide 4 and read the intent of HB 286. He
said the purpose of the language in HB 286 is to strengthen
victims' ability to request compensation for these costs,
thereby ensuring they are not financially burdened by their
involvement in the criminal justice process.
4:27:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a current definition for
restitution in existing law.
4:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE expressed her belief that there is an
existing definition in current law. However, she deferred to a
representative from the Department of Law to respond to ensure
accuracy.
4:28:15 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN shared his appreciation for the intent of HB 286,
noting that it aligns with what he frequently hears from
victims. He emphasized that while victims often seek resolution,
many express dissatisfaction with the current compensation
process. However, even with forfeited PFD funds from prisoners,
the compensation victims receive does not meet their
expectations. Victims often hope for restitution to make them
whole, but their experiences often fall short. Some victims,
after spending significant time and effort navigating the
system, end up with minimal compensationsometimes as little as
$500 to $1,500. He recalled speaking with Angela Harris, a woman
who was stabbed at a library, and how she received only $2,200
to $3,200 from the Office of Victims' Rights. He expressed
concern that the system creates a false expectation of
restitution that cannot truly address the financial and
emotional losses victims face. He expressed strong support for
the legislation but raised concerns about the gap between the
system's promises and the actual support victims receive. He
wondered why, in the current economic climate, the system is not
capable of fully compensating victims for their losses.
4:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE acknowledged the concerns raised about
victim compensation and restitution. She explained that the
issue had been discussed extensively, especially in relation to
the changes within DPS. She said she became involved in this
matter due to her role as the subcommittee chair for DPS. As a
result, she started researching the various victim services the
department was addressing, particularly focusing on victim
restitution and related challenges. DPS was undergoing
significant restructuring, including the creation of a separate
division focused specifically on victimization. This was aimed
at addressing some of the gaps in victim services, including the
process for accessing restitution. However, she confirmed that
there are still limitations on the available funds and that
victims often face significant barriers in accessing these
resources. She acknowledged that there are strict limits on the
compensation that can be requested, which vary depending on the
type of crime. While DPS is actively working to improve these
processes, the Office of Victims' Rights expressed frustration
over the inability to even get the ball rolling in some cases.
Some requests for compensation were either being denied or not
even considered, further complicating the situation. She agreed
that the funding for victim compensation needs to be corrected
and that ongoing efforts to improve the system are still in
progress.
4:31:54 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN spoke to the Office of Victims' Rights role as
part of the legislative branch. He reflected on the decision to
place the office within the legislative branch, noting his lack
of involvement in that decision. He also reflected on the
challenges facing public safety in Alaska, particularly in rural
areas, which experience some of the highest rates of sexual
abuse and assault in the country. He stressed the importance of
increased resources for public safety, specifically to enhance
investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators. He pointed out
that while victim compensation is crucial, victims often express
frustration with the lack of progress in holding perpetrators
accountable. Given the limited budget, he said he would
prioritize allocating more funds to public safety and increasing
resources for DPS to bolster investigations. He expressed that
if he had to choose between allocating additional funds to
victim restitution and more resources for DPS, he would
prioritize the latter.
4:33:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE highlighted recent efforts to address
public safety and victim compensation, particularly in rural
Alaska. She shared that her subcommittee in the House has
advocated for substantial increases in funding for DPS,
including the addition of 10 new Public Safety Officers (PSOs)
and new investigators dedicated to tackling sexual assault and
sex crimes. These efforts stemmed from feedback and requests
from the public, emphasizing the pressing need to enhance
investigations in rural areas. She spoke to the current state of
victim restitution, noting that much of the funding comes from
permanent contracts from incarcerated individuals, but
questioned whether this is the best long-term solution. She
suggested that alternative sources for restitution could be
explored. The Victim Crime Compensation Board has been improving
its processes by adding staff, which has led to greater
efficiency and a more streamlined system. While funding was
previously not seen as the primary issue, there was a
significant need for more personnel to manage restitution claims
effectively. Both the conviction process and victim compensation
efforts are being actively addressed.
4:35:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI cited AS 12.55.045 (a), line 10; he
requested a definition of "other person."
4:35:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE discussed restitution eligibility,
specifically the language that allows the court to order
restitution when credible evidence is presented. HB 286 includes
provisions for victims as well as public or private
organizations, such as those providing counseling, medical, or
shelter services for the victim. She expressed concern about the
interpretation of the law and the potential inclusion of those
directly affected by the crime, such as family members of
victims. She acknowledged that she is not a lawyer but wanted to
highlight the need for clarity around the scope of individuals
or entities eligible for restitution under the bill.
4:36:58 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked why AS 12.55.045 (a), lines 6-7 exclude any
mention of the loss of income.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked him to clarify his question.
4:37:34 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked for clarification on the use of capital
letters and brackets to indicate text that is being removed from
existing statute. He inquired why certain provisions were being
removed and expressed concern about the impact of these
deletions.
4:37:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE explained that the issue with the
statutory language, which was indicated with capital letters and
brackets, stemmed from a mistake in a previous version of the
bill. She clarified that the error had been identified and
corrected during the House State Affairs committee process.
CHAIR KAWASAKI confirmed that the correct version of HB 286 is
the "S" version, which does not contain the statutory language
error.
4:38:24 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced invited testimony for HB 286.
4:38:45 PM
KATHY HANSEN, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of Victims' Rights
(OVR), Anchorage, Alaska, invited testimony for HB 286. She
noted that she has served as an attorney for the Office of
Victims' Rights for the past 20 years. She outlined the proposed
changes to the restitution statute in HB 286, which were
requested by OVR. She noted that OVR attorneys assist crime
victims by providing legal representation, advising on
restitution claims, and helping resolve any legal disputes
regarding restitution. She highlighted two recent Court of
Appeals cases that raised questions about whether courts could
award restitution for lost wages victims incur when attending
criminal court proceedings: Keane Smith v. State (2022) and
Sealy v. State (2023). These cases brought uncertainty regarding
victims' rights to compensation for lost wages due to attendance
at court proceedings.
MS. HANSEN said that HB 286 seeks to explicitly affirm that
victims are entitled to restitution for lost wages incurred
while attending court hearings related to the crime. This
provision would not require additional funding, as it simply
ensures the court can award restitution for such losses as part
of the judgment against the defendant. The bill would track
existing federal law on restitution for criminal cases and is
intended to provide clear guidelines for judges and prosecutors
in Alaska. It aims to create uniformity and predictability in
restitution awards and ensure that victims are fairly
compensated for expenses that prevent them from exercising their
constitutional rights to attend court proceedings. She
emphasized the importance of passing HB 286 to reduce the need
for victims to litigate these restitution issues and to save
court resources. She also referenced a recent Alaska Supreme
Court decision, Brennan Grubb v. B (2024), in which the court
recognized the legislature's trend in expanding victims' rights
to restitution. This decision further underscores the need for
clearer guidelines in HB 286.
4:43:14 PM
MS. HANSEN referenced the case of the David Grunwald homicide as
an example of the financial hardship victims may face while
attending court hearings. Katie Grunwald, David's mother, had to
attend numerous court hearings over a period of more than two
years involving multiple co-defendants. During this time, she
incurred lost wages, which should be recognized as a legitimate
claim for restitution. She addressed a question raised by
Senator Claman about funding, clarifying that the funding for
OVR primarily comes from the forfeited PFDs of convicted
criminals. She noted that the OVR's entire operating budget is a
small fractionabout 1 percent or lessof this pot of money.
4:44:15 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification on the procedural
process of restitution, noting that it seems to be a heavily
litigated area. He asked if it was correct to say that when a
victim is harmed by a crime, they would first go through the
conviction process, and then the victim would need to provide
evidence of the damages they've suffered. He asked if the
purpose of HB 286 is to define what restitution victims are
entitled to.
4:44:44 PM
MS. HANSEN explained that after the defendant is sentenced, the
victim would have the opportunity to submit documentation and a
total amount requested for restitution to the prosecutor's
office. This information would be shared with the defense, who
has 30 days to object. If no agreement is reached, a hearing
would be scheduled where the victim would provide live, sworn
testimony in court with the defendant present, answering
questions about their losses. The court would then make a final
decision on the restitution award.
4:45:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired whether restitution for victims
typically covers only specific expenses like lost income,
childcare, elder care, transportation, and other similar costs.
He asked if there have been any instances in the past where
courts ordered restitution for pain and suffering or other types
of damages.
4:45:50 PM
MS. HANSEN clarified that under current Alaska law, non-economic
damages such as punitive damages and pain and suffering, which
may be awarded in a civil case, are not permitted in a criminal
case. Therefore, only economic damages, such as lost income,
childcare, and other related expenses, can be ordered in
criminal cases.
4:46:09 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI posed a hypothetical scenario in which an
individual is a victim of assault, unable to work for three
months, and as a result, their employer loses income. He asked
whether the employer would be considered an "other person" who
could apply for restitution under the current statute.
4:46:44 PM
MS. HANSEN replied that theoretically, an employer could be
considered an "other person" eligible to request restitution for
financial losses, such as lost income resulting from an assault.
She clarified that there is no current legal definition of
"restitution" in the Alaska statute. The phrase "other person"
in AS 12.55.045 is meant to include individuals or entities,
like insurance companies, that suffer financial loss as a result
of a crime, as confirmed by appellate case law. In the
hypothetical scenario presented, if the employer's claim for
restitution was contested by the defendant, the employer would
need to litigate the issue in a restitution hearing, where the
judge would make the final decision. She noted that OVR would
not represent non-statutory victims, meaning they would not
assist with litigation involving employers or other entities
seeking restitution.
4:47:42 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed concern about the broad
definition of "other person" in the restitution statute,
suggesting that it could lead to unintended consequences such as
employers or insurance companies seeking restitution,
potentially crowding out compensation meant for victims. He
cited the possibility of a government entity claiming a loss of
tax revenue due to an individual's job loss. He questioned
whether there had been any discussions about narrowing or better
defining what constitutes an "other person" eligible for
restitution.
4:48:29 PM
MS. HANSEN responded that in her experience over the last 20
years, she has not seen abuses of the statute. She acknowledged
that she sees only a small percentage of cases where victims
contact OVR for legal representation. She referenced a reported
decision called 'LONIS,' which addresses whether an insurance
company could seek restitution, and offered to provide the
committee with the case for further review.
CHAIR KAWASAKI requested that information in writing.
4:49:36 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI inquired whether the list of restitution items,
such as compensation for lost income, child care, elder care,
and transportation, could be considered an exclusive list rather
than an inclusive one. He expressed concern that a more general
definition of restitution might be better than specifying these
particular items, as there could be other types of restitution
that are not currently considered. He suggested that the law may
need to be revisited in the future to address any unforeseen
expenses.
4:50:18 PM
MS. HANSEN explained that the reason the restitution items were
specifically outlined in HB 286 was to align with the federal
statute, allowing for the use of reported decisions from federal
jurisdictions as a guide for Alaska courts. This would help
apply victim restitution law uniformly, potentially saving money
and resources. The phrase "including, but not limited to" had
been considered to address any potential gaps in the list, but
it was ultimately excluded after legal review. She suggested
that the sponsors might be able to provide further insight into
that decision.
4:51:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE replied that she does not have any
additional information to provide.
4:51:29 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony on HB 286.
4:51:56 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of HB 286. She said she is the Executive Director for
the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
(ANDVSA), which represents 24 member programs across the state,
direct services for victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault. She shared her experience as a member of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission, noting the challenges victims face
in the criminal justice system. While the 1994 constitutional
amendment granted victims the right to receive restitution from
offenders, the current law lacks clarity on what expenses
qualify for restitution. This ambiguity has created confusion
for both victims and prosecutors. HB 286 would help address this
by clearly outlining expenses such as lost income, child care,
elder care, transportation, and other necessary costs,
particularly those related to attending court proceedings.
Studies show restitution helps reduce long-term harm for
victims, fosters trust in the justice system, and encourages
future crime reporting. She urged support for HB 286 to provide
clear guidance on what constitutes restitution in Alaska,
ensuring victims are properly compensated.
4:55:26 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI closed public testimony on HB 286.
4:55:45 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN inquired about the amount of restitution paid in
Alaska, asking for data on how much is collected annually, how
much is paid out, and how many individuals receive restitution
payments.
4:55:59 PM
MS. MEADE said the court collects restitution on behalf of
victims, with a small team in the administrative office
dedicated to this task full-time. She explained that when a
defendant is incarcerated, no restitution can be collected from
their PFD because it is redirected to a different state fund. As
a result, restitution cannot be collected from an incarcerated
individual's PFD until they are released. Some incarcerated
individuals may earn small amounts through prison jobs, and
occasionally, those earnings are sent to the court for
restitution payments, but this does not significantly impact the
overall collection process. Restitution is more commonly paid in
cases involving crimes such as guiding or fishing offenses,
where the defendants generally have more financial means, while
restitution from defendants incarcerated for crimes under Title
11 is more challenging. She provided data from the last five
years, stating that around 1,500 restitution orders totaling $7
million were issued, but only about $2.5 million, or 36 percent,
was collected and paid to victims. The collection rate for 2023
has been lower, at 13 percent, but she expects this to rise as
defendants are released from prison and their PFDs become
available for garnishment. Businesses, particularly Walmart, are
the most frequent recipients of restitution due to theft cases.
The second-largest recipient is the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board (VCCB), which provides immediate financial assistance to
victims before restitution is fully paid. Other entities, such
as the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) in
Medicaid fraud cases, and insurance companies like State Farm,
also receive restitution.
5:02:02 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if there is any estimate of the resources
spent by the court, public defenders, and prosecutors to collect
the $2.5 million in restitution, not including private counsel.
He asked how much is being invested in terms of court and public
resources to collect restitution, given the total amount ordered
versus what has actually been collected.
5:02:31 PM
MS. MEADE replied that the process of collecting restitution is
quite efficient. She explained that the public defender and the
state prosecutor are not involved in this process. In the past,
the collections unit within DOL handled it, but that was
dissolved around six or seven years ago. With no one else
handling restitution collections, the court made the decision to
dedicate one and a half staff members to ensure that victims are
able to collect their restitution. This is considered the
primary cost of fulfilling these orders. The court uses a global
writ to the PFD and has established a system with the PFD to
facilitate garnishments for restitution collections.
5:03:23 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if it is fair to say that, as a practical
matter, the compensation for being a victim of a crime may not
be large in the grand scheme of things, but at least the state
is getting a good return on its investment to collect that
money. He added that while the compensation might not be
significant, the state is not spending a large amount of money
to collect it.
5:03:45 PM
MS. MEADE replied that she understands what he is saying and
agrees with the sentiment. The court system is quite proud of
its ability to provide this service with just 1.5 persons. She
added that the hardest part of the process is keeping track of
the victims' addresses.
5:04:03 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked how much money other persons get versus the
victim of the potential crime like Walmart.
5:04:30 PM
MS. MEADE explained that Walmart would be considered the victim
of theft because they are the ones who absolutely lost the
money. The term "other person" was added by the legislature when
they passed the statute. This was discussed in the loan-in-case,
as the legislature's intent was to ensure that anyone who
suffered in any way due to the crime could be reimbursed by the
defendant, to the extent that economic damage had occurred. The
damage caused by the crime must be related to it, and this
principle was further clarified in the case that Ms. Hansen
referred to. This case, which was recently decided, refined the
statute and highlighted that the damage must be a reasonably
foreseeable consequence of the crime. For example, when
someone's legs are broken, it is reasonably foreseeable that
they might incur medical bills, and the insurance company might
have to cover the costs. These are all compensable damages, and
Lowe's would be the direct victim of the theft in such a
situation. The state is considered a direct victim if someone
commits Medicaid fraud and takes state funds that were not
theirs. From her understanding, "other person" is simply
intended to ensure that the statute does not exclude anyone who
has suffered as a result of the crime.
5:05:47 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked for more information regarding how much
money the "other persons" receive compared to the actual victims
of the potential crime. He referenced Walmart and Sportsman's
Warehouse as examples, noting that these entities often receive
restitution. He asked for a broad explanation of how this
process works.
5:06:14 PM
MS. MEADE replied that Walmart and Sportsman's Warehouse, as
businesses, are considered the victims in cases of theft, as
they are the ones who lost the money. The "other person"
category was added by the legislature to ensure that anyone who
suffers due to a crime, in any way, can be reimbursed by the
defendant for economic damages. This includes victims like
insurance companies, which may cover medical costs or other
expenses related to the crime. She noted that a recent case
refined this understanding, clarifying that the damages must be
a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the crime. For example,
if someone is injured, it's foreseeable that an insurance
company might have to pay medical expenses, making them eligible
for restitution. The "other person" designation is meant to
include all parties that have suffered economic harm due to the
crime, ensuring that no one is excluded from seeking
restitution.
5:07:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE noted that she did not put forth this
bill forward to resolve all restitution issues in the state. She
suggested that this is one step the state could take.
5:07:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether restitution to a victim or
another person injured by the offense is limited to
compensation. He referenced a previous question, inquiring if
restitution only covers compensation or if it could extend
beyond that.
5:07:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE deferred to a representative from DOL to
respond.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI suggested that HB 286 would be litigated.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE explained that restitution is not
limited to the listed forms of compensation, despite the use of
the term "limited to." She noted that there had been
conversations in the other legislative chamber about this
interpretation. Based on her understanding, the original statute
was too broad, leading to significant issues with requests being
made repeatedly. The items listed in the revised statute were
meant to clarify and specify the scope of restitution rather
than impose strict limitations.
5:08:58 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI sought clarification on whether restitution
could cover compensation for lost income, childcare, elder care,
transportation, and potentially more.
5:09:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE replied yes.
5:09:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if "compensation for the value of
lost income" applies broadly to all lost income or only to
income lost during the victim's or other person's participation
in the investigation or prosecution. He pointed out that the
wording could be interpreted in two ways and asked whether
expenses such as childcare are covered comprehensively due to
the offense or only if they are incurred during participation in
the investigation or prosecution.
5:09:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked for clarification regarding his
question about litigation.
5:10:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification using an example
involving childcare expenses. He inquired whether a victim could
receive restitution for the full two months of childcare
expenses incurred as a result of the offense, or if the
restitution would only cover childcare expenses incurred during
the victim's or other person's participation in the
investigation, prosecution, or a court proceeding related to the
offense.
5:10:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE clarified her understanding that
restitution includes expenses related to the litigation process.
She explained that if a person is harmed and unable to take care
of their children, any childcare expenses incurred for attending
the trial or participating in litigation would be covered. She
said that all such related expenses would be included.
5:11:08 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held HB 286 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 146 Ver B.PDF |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB146 Sectional Analysis Version B 5.8.23.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB146 Summary of Changes Ver A to B 5.8.23.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB0146 DPS Zero Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 DPS Follow-Up.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Transmittal Letter 03.28.23.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| CSHB286 Additional Documents- Yani Morley Letter of Support.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 Bill Hearing Request 3.07.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 JUD-ACS 2.05.34.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 Sectional Analysis ver B 2.27.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 Sponsor Statement 2.08.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 Summary of Changes ver. B 2.27.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| CSHB286 ver B 2.28.24.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB286 ver A.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| Letter of Support ANDVSA HB 286.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 286 |
| HB 265 - JPD Letter of Support.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - v.B.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - PowerPoint Presentation.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - Letters of Support & Back-Up Information.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - DOA-PDA Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - DOA-OPA Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - DPS-ASTD Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |
| HB 265 - DOL-CJL Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/18/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 265 |