Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/02/2022 09:00 AM 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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB166 | |
| HB177 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 166 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 2, 2022
9:04 a.m.
9:04:35 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sara Rasmussen
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Kevin McCabe, Bill Sponsor; Kelly Howell,
Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety; Representative Chris Tuck, Bill Sponsor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
David Wilson, Captain, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety; Julie Morris, Staff, Representative Kevin
McCabe; Jeffrey Schmitz, Director, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Administration.
SUMMARY
HB 166 ONE LICENSE PLATE PER VEHICLE
HB 166 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 177 REVISED PROGRAM: APPROPRIATIONS
HB 177 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 281 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 281 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 282 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 282 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 166
"An Act relating to the issuance of vehicle
registration plates."
9:05:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE, BILL SPONSOR, explained that
the bill would take Alaska vehicles from a two-plate
requirement to a one-plate requirement. He described HB 166
as a budget bill meant to bring savings to the state. He
thought the legislature was past the point of making large
budget cuts and legislators were looking for places to make
"surgical efficiencies." His office had spoken extensively
with police departments and the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). He detailed the entities had reported five citations
in 2020 and one citation in 2019. He explained the
citations were fix-it tickets that generated no revenue for
the state. He believed the state should save some money in
the production and distribution of the plates. He detailed
that the bill did not impact any program, service, or jobs.
The plates were generated by a company contracted by the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). He viewed the bill as a
surgical change and pointed to the fiscal note showing a
cost savings of $332,000. He thought it would be helpful to
the state if the legislature could make numerous "small
surgical changes."
9:07:29 AM
Representative Wool asked if the customer paying for their
license plate would be charged less for one plate instead
of two.
Representative McCabe replied that Alaska was different
than most other states on the topic. He explained that in
most other states a vehicle owner paid a registration fee
and purchased the plates. He clarified that in Alaska,
individuals paid the registration fee, and the state bought
the plates. He elaborated that according to the Department
of Administration (DOA), the bill would mean the state
would only have to purchase one plate per vehicle, which
would result in savings to the state. He supposed the costs
could be passed to citizens, but the registration was not
that big, and it would be a wash.
Representative Wool clarified that he did not really want
to change any other fee structures and did not support
changing fee structures for vehicle registration. He asked
for verification that because the bill only required one
license plate per vehicle, it would be possible for a
person to legally put on a plate of their favorite sports
team.
Representative McCabe agreed.
Representative Thompson referenced specialty plates. He
asked for verification that vehicle owners would not be
disallowed from having a front plate as well. He surmised a
person could continue to purchase and pay for specialty
plates to install on the front and back of their vehicle.
Representative McCabe agreed.
Representative Thompson thought it sounded good.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked the sponsor for bringing the bill
forward and appreciated that making small savings in
various locations could add up. He asked if there had been
any element of added safety for law enforcement to identify
vehicles more easily with two plates.
Representative McCabe did not know the precise history
behind the use of two plates. He stated that traffic had
been slower in the past when plates had been put in. He
stated that especially with new cars, the front license
plate interfered with the radar sensors, cameras, and
proximity sensors placed on front bumpers. He explained
that most new cars, including hybrid and electric, were not
equipped with front plates and it was necessary to drill
holes in the bumper or get an after market license plate
holder. He believed the bill moved Alaska forward with the
technology. His office had checked with the various police
departments and DPS. He noted that individuals from the
organizations were available online.
Representative McCabe identified the Anchorage Police
Department (APD) as the only police department that had a
problem with the bill. He elaborated that APD had stated
the change would take a tool away from the department. He
informed the committee that DPS was neutral on the bill and
had communicated it would deal with whatever the
legislature decided. He added that one of the police
departments in the [Mat-Su] valley had communicated it
would not be enthusiastic about the change, but it was not
that big of a deal. Based on his own personal survey, he
observed that about one in ten vehicles did not have a
front plate or it was not visible at night due to snow or
mud. He wondered why the state should spend the money on
the plate if it was not ticketing for its absence.
9:12:57 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought it sounded reasonable. He asked if
current law required vehicles to have front and back
plates.
Representative McCabe answered vehicles were currently
statutorily required to have front and back plates, but it
was not enforced. He noted the penalty was a fix-it ticket.
He added he had supporting documents from individuals
stating they would rather get a fix-it ticket than drill
holes in their Jaguar or expensive truck bumpers.
Representative LeBon recognized there was a representative
present from DPS.
9:14:09 AM
KELLY HOWELL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, stated that the department did
not have a position on the bill. The department would
enforce whatever laws the legislature deemed necessary and
prudent. She noted there was a captain with the Alaska
State Troopers on the line who could answer questions
regarding enforcement.
DAVID WILSON, CAPTAIN, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), shared that he had been
a state trooper for 20 years and had been assigned to a
variety of things including petrol, investigations, and the
director's office. He noted that DPS did not have a
position on the bill and would do whatever was necessary to
modify its current work in order to accommodate any
changes. There were a couple of things the department did
where front plates were helpful. For example, when a
collision occurred and there was a criminal charge, the
offender was typically hitting someone with their car
instead of getting hit by someone. He explained that front
plates often fell off at hit-and-run sites, which helped
the department. He noted it did not mean the department
would not be able to find the offender in another way, but
it was something that effected investigations.
Mr. Wilson identified a second example relating to criminal
activities involving a suspect absconding from a scene. He
explained that as officers approached a scene, vehicles
traveling away from the incident were headed towards the
officers and the front plate was visible. He explained that
without the front plate, there were vehicle descriptions
and perhaps other things, but it was a bit more difficult
to locate absconders. He stated the issues were not
insurmountable, but they impacted the department's ability
to investigate sometimes. He noted the department could get
around the issue in other ways. He explained that resources
were often the issue: the more officers the department had
to respond to a scene increased the likelihood of pulling
over a vehicle matching the description where the front
plate would not be as necessary. He confirmed that the
department did not ticket the violation very often.
9:17:15 AM
Representative Wool asked if the lack of a front plate was
used as a reason to pull someone over to look into further
infractions or violations of law.
Mr. Wilson confirmed it was the case. He elaborated it was
referred to as "probable cause for a traffic stop." He
noted that when used for probable cause it often turned
into other enforcement action. He elaborated if there were
more serious things found during the traffic stop, the
other issues would likely get more attention than the front
plate as far as ticketing and eventually criminal charges
if they occurred.
Co-Chair Merrick asked for an explanation of "PC."
Mr. Wilson replied that PC stood for probable cause. He
explained that DPS was required to have a burden of proof
that a violation had occurred in order to seize a vehicle.
The department could not merely pull people over without a
reason. The front plate provided PC for a traffic stop
because it was a violation.
Representative Wool asked if DPS kept statistics on the
number of times it used the lack of a front license plate
as PC but did not issue a ticket as a result of the traffic
stop.
Mr. Wilson would follow up with an answer. He did not
believe DPS had a database storing information for PC for
stops that were not ticketed. The department did have
records on the actual tickets.
Representative Josephson thought a stop required reasonable
suspicion not probable cause.
Mr. Wilson answered that DPS needed reasonable suspicion
during a traffic stop to do things like a dog search on a
vehicle for the presence of narcotics. He explained that
probable cause was required for the initial traffic stop.
He elaborated that the topic often arose during criminal
investigations involving DUI [driving under the influence]
and other crimes, where the probable cause was often
challenged by the defense. He explained that without good
probable cause, the entire DUI could be dismissed.
9:20:34 AM
Representative Josephson thought that previous questions in
the committee seemed to contain an undercurrent of troopers
using the absence of a front plate as pretext to find other
nefarious misconduct. He asked if Mr. Wilson supported that
notion.
Mr. Wilson answered that state troopers were very busy and
generally the absence of a front plate did not get
significant attention from DPS to initiate a traffic stop
unless there was something else going on. He expounded that
if a vehicle matched a description of a vehicle seen as a
dangerous driver along the roadway or speeding through a
neighborhood and the troopers did not have a good
description of the vehicle, the lack of a front plate would
be a pretext for reckless driving or an assault
investigation. He stated the department did not really have
much time for troopers to pull someone over just because a
plate was missing; it usually involved in a more serious
offence.
Representative Edgmon thanked the bill sponsor for bringing
the bill forward. He thought of a bill offered earlier in
the current session by Representative James Kaufman about
digital publications. He reasoned that often times the
benefits and the costs lay in the margin. He considered a
scenario where HB 166 passed and became law. He remarked
that there would continue to be vehicles with front license
plates including motor vehicles like ATVs and snow
machines. He asked if the bill sponsor had thought out the
implementation and how the situation would work.
9:23:34 AM
Representative McCabe asked for clarification.
Representative Edgmon clarified he was asking about a
scenario where the bill went into effect.
Representative McCabe had not thought out the mechanics. He
highlighted that he had a conversation the previous evening
with a staffer who had shared her back license plate had
been destroyed. The individual had communicated that if the
bill passed, she would put the front plate on the back of
her car and add license decals so she did not have to buy a
new plate. He was not clear on Representative Edgmon's
question.
Representative Edgmon provided a scenario where a person
registered their vehicle in 2022. He asked for verification
that the car would have a front plate with a 2024 decal.
Representative McCabe answered that front plates did not
have decals.
9:25:13 AM
Representative Wool asked how many other states had a one
plate or two plate law.
Representative McCabe answered that 20 states currently had
a one plate law. He noted that Idaho was currently going
through the process. He shared that Ohio was the most
recent state to go through the process; his office had
spoken with a trooper in Ohio who had reported the rollout
there had been seamless and the change had not hindered the
ability to make stops for traffic offences.
Representative Edgmon believed the bill was a good idea and
saving $330,000 was a substantial amount of money.
Representative Johnson asked if there were any safety
considerations associated with having four holes drilled in
the front bumper with no license plate.
Representative McCabe believed it depended on the car. He
shared that his father-in-law was an old car buff and some
of the older front bumpers were small. He imagined a large
plate holder on the front of some older cars could impact
the structural integrity. He highlighted that newer
electric cars did not have a font bumper. He believed it
would likely impact the structural integrity of the
plastic.
Representative Thompson had not heard any resistance to the
bill. He requested to report it from committee during the
current meeting.
9:27:52 AM
AT EASE
9:28:51 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter asked what liability Alaska
drivers picked up if they moved to another state or drove
their vehicle to another state. He surmised the move would
require a new license plate in a new state. He asked if
drivers would pick up a liability if they drove to another
state requiring two license plates.
Representative McCabe answered that his office had talked
to the Ohio state trooper about the issue. He explained
that in the past, a neighboring state had a one-plate law
and Ohio troopers would notice vehicles driving through
with one plate. One of the reasons Ohio changed its law to
one plate was to align with the neighboring state. He
explained that typically the law for a vehicle's
registration followed the car. For example, an Alaska car
driving to Washington would only need one plate [if the
bill became law]. He reasoned that a driver could perhaps
be stopped, but they would be legal because their
registration was in Alaska and they were complying with
Alaska law.
9:30:47 AM
JULIE MORRIS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE (via
teleconference), reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on
file):
Section 1: Amends AS 28.10.108(g) to make all
references to "plates" and "registration" singular.
Section 2: Amends AS 28.10.108(h) to make all
references to "plates" singular.
Section 3: Amends AS 28.10.155(a) to make all
references to "plates" singular.
Section 4: Grammatically amends AS 28.10.161(a) to
conform with the singular intent of the bill.
Section 5: Amends AS 28.10.161(b) adds conforming
language for a singular plate.
Section 6: Adds a subsection to AS 28.10.161 that
provides an individual or organization the option to
return a plate should they be issued two plates.
Section 7: Grammatically amends AS 28.10.181(b) to
conform with the singular intent of the bill.
Section 8: Amends AS 28.10.181(j) to make all
references to "plates" singular.
Section 9: Amends AS 28.10.121(d)(9) to make all
references to "plates" singular.
Section 10: Amends AS 28.10.441 to make all references
to "plates" singular.
9:31:44 AM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick asked the department to review the fiscal
note.
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), stated
the fiscal note reflected a simple analysis of the
division's annual cost for purchasing two plates versus one
plate. The division estimated a savings of $332,000 per
year.
9:33:31 AM
AT EASE
9:33:42 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick set an amendment deadline for noon on
March 5. She thanked the bill sponsor for bringing the bill
forward.
HB 166 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:34:11 AM
AT EASE
9:34:59 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to an increase of an appropriation
due to additional federal or other program receipts;
and providing for an effective date."
9:35:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, BILL SPONSOR, introduced the
bill pertaining to revised program appropriations. He
stated that the bill attempted to assert the constitutional
powers of the legislature by better defining and limiting
the revised program legislative (RPL) process. He noted
that the term was actually an accounting code and should
really be referred to as revised program receipts. He
explained that the process involved authorizing the
Legislative Budget and Audit (LB&A) Committee to have
receipt authority through an RPL process that the governor
presented to the committee for additional approval. He
clarified that once the legislature set up a program and
passed a budget or appropriations to fund the program, the
legislature, as the appropriating body, gave LB&A the
authority to receive any additional funding coming in on
behalf of the full legislature. The bill sought to
establish sidebars to ensure the process was better
understood and to avoid legal problems when money was
received.
9:37:39 AM
Representative LeBon recalled a situation two years back
where LB&A had accepted federal money and the full
legislature had to convene in Juneau to approve action
taken. He asked for a summary of what had taken place and
how it likely influenced hearing the bill currently.
Representative Tuck replied that historically, the most
money the LB&A had received was approximately $120 million
until Medicaid expansion, which had increased the largest
amount received to $500 million. Over the past few years,
$5 billion had come from LB&A. He reported there had been
three problems associated with American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding received. First, the
legislature had not set up a program. For example, the
small business relief program had not been established by
the legislature; the governor had established the program
through the executive branch. He explained there had been
no appropriations money from the legislature for the
program; the governor had appropriated the money. Second,
for the community relief program, community assistance had
been vetoed by the governor from the budget. Subsequently,
the governor had put the money in through the RPL process.
Third, there had been items in the capital budget that had
not yet passed the legislature that the governor ran
through the RPL process. He highlighted a fourth problem
where funds that went out through the community relief
program were contrary to federal guidance. For example,
funds could not be used for revenue replacement. He
explained that because of the situation, the state was
currently in a federal audit and the state may need to pay
the monies back.
Representative LeBon asked how the bill rectified the
issues highlighted by Representative Tuck.
Representative Tuck answered that the legislature had a
constitutional obligation when delegating authority and
powers to a committee and it was necessary for the
legislature to be careful with the responsibility.
Additionally, there were constitutional powers between the
executive and legislative branches. The bill attempted to
eliminate ambiguity on the legislature's authority, what
was granted to LB&A, and what was allowed for the governor.
He read from the sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1:
Page 1 lines 5-9 amend AS 37.07.080(h) to clarify that
the RPL process is only available for additional funds
for existing programs or projects that have already
been funded by the Legislature.
Page 1 lines 10-11 amend AS 37.07.080(h)(1) with
conforming language.
Page 1 line 12-page 2 line 11 amend AS 37.07.080(h)(2)
to replace the current 45-day timeline for any RPL
with a stair-stepped timeline as follows:
? 45 days for RPLs up to $20 million;
? 90 days for RPLs up to $50 million;
? 180 days for RPLs up to $100 million; and
? 270 days for RPLs greater than $100 million.
Page 2, lines 12-19 amend AS 37.07.080(h)(3) with
conforming language.
Section 2:
Provides for an immediate effective date.
9:42:40 AM
Representative Josephson thanked Representative Tuck for
introducing the legislation and shared that he had a strong
interest in the subject. He stated it was natural for any
governor to want to protect their authority and power, and
similarly for the judiciary and legislature to feel the
same way. He understood that some balance needed to be
struck. He talked about two hypothetical scenarios that
caused him some concern. He elaborated that former Governor
Bill Walker had expanded Medicaid and had found the ability
to take the action unilaterally under Title 47. He detailed
that a judge had ultimately agreed with the move, although
the legislature had vigorously sued the governor. He
thought in retrospect there was relative calm over the fact
that Medicaid had been expanded. He noted that the action
had taken place in the summer of 2015. He asked how it
would have played out under the current bill.
Representative Tuck answered that Medicaid expansion had
involved between $200 million and $500 million. He
explained there were statutes that instructed the governor
to go after those type of funds. He detailed that under the
bill, LB&A's role would be to determine where the funds
were going and how they were used through the Department of
Health and Social Services. He elaborated that funds could
have been divided out into timeframes or applied. He
clarified that if the funds had been a lump sum, the
governor could not act unilaterally until after 270 days.
He furthered that [under the proposed bill] if no action
had been taken by the legislature, expansion would have
gone into effect after 270 days.
Representative Josephson asked whether RPLs must be adopted
by the legislature if it was in session. He asked for any
distinction between interim and session in the operation of
RPLs.
Representative Tuck replied that it did not matter if the
legislature was in or out of session, LB&A could adopt RPLs
around the full legislature.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that if
LB&A failed to adopt the RPLs, they would become law by
operation "after the clock ticks through."
9:46:21 AM
Representative Tuck made a distinction. He explained that
if the legislature did not establish law by setting up a
program through law and if it did not appropriate the
money, the governor could not act unilaterally on an RPL.
He elaborated that two things could happen when an RPL was
presented to LB&A. The committee could adopt the RPL
immediately to get the money distributed as necessary or it
could reject the RPL and the RPL would automatically go
into effect 45 days later.
Representative Josephson continued with the Medicaid
expansion example. He stated that the amount would be well
in excess of $100 million; therefore, the 270-day rule
would apply. He reasoned that the legislature would always
be in session for at least 90 days, meaning the governor
could not expand during interim. He explained that if the
governor had issued the RPL at adjournment in late May, it
would always spill into the next year. He stated his
understanding that Representative Tuck was saying that
notwithstanding the legislature's reconvening the next
year, the RPL clock would still tick, and the legislature
would have had to pass a law to stop expansion.
Representative Tuck answered that Representative
Josephson's understanding was correct related to the
specific case. He considered Medicaid expansion and small
business relief separately because the actions were
different. He explained that with Medicaid expansion,
because statute specified the governor shall go for the
funds, the only way the legislature could have prevented
expansion was to change the statute.
Representative Josephson highlighted the [federal]
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
that passed at the onset of the pandemic. He stated his
understanding that under the bill, the relief would not
have been deliverable until the legislature returned. He
recalled that RPLs had been issued in April/May of 2020 and
the legislature left on March 28 on a long recess or quasi-
adjournment. He asked for verification that if the
legislature had not adopted the RPLs, the governor could
not have distributed pandemic relief and there would have
been tremendous political pressure for the legislature to
meet to direct the RPLs to be delivered.
Representative Tuck replied that technically the
legislature had recessed; therefore, when the governor had
presented the RPLs they had been inappropriate and illegal
for the four reasons he had previously listed. He
elaborated that 48 hours after the RPLs had passed, a court
case had been filed. He had been surprised the lawsuit had
come from outside a government entity. He had thought a
community would have filed a suit because it saw the
community assistance program as unfair. He considered that
perhaps a community would have filed a lawsuit, but someone
else beat them to it.
Representative Tuck explained that the legislature did not
appropriate the money, a program had not been set up, and
the governor had unilaterally exercised authorities outside
the legislature. He emphasized it was clear the legislature
was the purse strings to the state budget. Additionally,
the legislature was responsible for setting programs
through legislation. He characterized the governor as the
arms and legs responsible for carrying out programs once
they were established by the legislature. He stated that in
the specific case, the governor had acted on his own and
everything had been done outside the legislature. He
elaborated that the legislature had reconvened for the
purpose of ratifying action taken by LB&A, not to take
appropriations or set programs. He stated it was still
questionable whether it was a legal activity. He argued
that it was not legal, because an RPL could not be amended.
He explained that the legislature would have had to adopt
or ratify what LB&A had done or the RPLs would have gone
into effect automatically [later on]. He stated that a true
appropriations bill could be amended by any legislator, but
an RPL was not a true appropriations bill.
9:52:34 AM
Representative Johnson surmised there was not a final
judgement on whether the action had been illegal. She asked
about the origin of the RPL process. She observed that even
if the legislature was in session for 90 days, 270 days
basically took away the governor's ability to even
contemplate the interim. She considered whether the
governor and legislature needed to be nimble or not during
the interim. She wondered if it was the reason the RPL had
been implemented in the first place.
Representative Tuck answered that the RPL process had been
in statute for a long time. He spoke to the original intent
of the process. He explained that the legislature
established programs and funded them through an
appropriations budget. When additional money came in [for a
program], the legislature was technically constitutionally
required to come back into session to appropriate the
money; however, the legislature had given powers to LB&A.
He stated that at one time the powers had been challenged
by the courts; therefore, LB&A had limited powers. He
stated there was clear distinction on the issue from
previous court cases. He explained that the RPL process had
gone beyond the previous court cases in the past several
years.
Representative Johnson stated she would have to look into
the reason the RPL process had been established. She
reasoned it must have come from a need. She considered
there must have been a reason to give the governor the
option [to use the RPL process] during the interim. She
wanted to understand the impetus for the process to avoid
reversing something that had been put in place for a
specific reason.
Representative Tuck answered that the need was efficiency.
The need had been to prevent the full legislature from
coming back if they were just bringing in more money to the
state. He elaborated that it mostly pertained to federal
receipts. He reminded the committee that the federal
budgeting cycle was different than Alaska's state cycle. He
expounded that once the legislature suspected money may be
coming in for something like education, the legislature
would set up a program for schools and appropriate the
money.
Representative Tuck noted there were several factors in the
legislature's ability to accept RPLs including whether
there was a program and whether the money was appropriated.
Additionally, there was language in the operating budget
that allowed the legislature to do so as well. If the
criteria were met, LB&A could receive money on behalf of
the full legislature. He clarified that the intent of the
process was not to set up programs. He explained that it
was not possible to use an appropriation to set up a
program; it was necessary to have separate legislation. He
stated that over the past several years, the situation had
turned into a mess. He argued that if the legislature had
properly appropriated the CARES funding, the money would
have gone out much quicker under the small business relief.
He stated that the legislature had approved the RPLs on
April 11 [2020] and they had not been released until the
end of August, which far exceeded the 45-day limit.
Co-Chair Merrick set an amendment deadline for March 5 at
noon.
HB 177 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
9:57:53 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB166.OpposingLetters.51421.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB166.SectionalAnalysis.VerA.5.14.21.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB166.SponsorStmt.VerA.5.14.21.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB166.SupportingLetters.51421.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB166.SupportingLetters.2.28.22.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 166 |
| HB 177 Explanation of Changes Version B 02.24.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Research RPL History Summary.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Research Legal Opinion 04.30.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Sectional Analysis Version B 02.24.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |
| HB 177 Sponsor Statement Version B 02.24.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 177 |