Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/05/2021 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| SB65 | |
| HB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 5, 2021
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Liz Snyder, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative David Eastman
Representative Christopher Kurka
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 65(JUD)
"An Act relating to immunity for consulting physicians,
podiatrists, osteopaths, advanced practice registered nurses,
physician assistants, chiropractors, dentists, optometrists, and
pharmacists."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 87
"An Act relating to electric-assisted bicycles."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 65
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY CONSULTING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) KIEHL
02/03/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/03/21 (S) HSS, JUD
02/16/21 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/21 (S) Heard & Held
02/16/21 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
02/18/21 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/18/21 (S) OPIOID OVERDOSE DRUGS
02/19/21 (S) HSS RPT CS 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/19/21 (S) DP: WILSON, BEGICH, HUGHES
02/19/21 (S) NR: REINBOLD
03/05/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/05/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/08/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/08/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/08/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/21 (S) Moved CSSB 65(JUD) Out of Committee
03/31/21 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/03/21 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/03/21 (S) DP: KIEHL, HUGHES, MYERS
04/03/21 (S) NR: REINBOLD, SHOWER
04/12/21 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/12/21 (S) VERSION: CSSB 65(JUD)
04/14/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/14/21 (H) HSS, JUD
04/27/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
04/27/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/27/21 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/29/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
04/29/21 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/04/21 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM DAVIS 106
05/04/21 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 65(HSS) Out of Committee
05/04/21 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
05/05/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 87
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WOOL
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) TRA, JUD
04/20/21 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/20/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/21 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/27/21 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/27/21 (H) Moved HB 87 Out of Committee
04/27/21 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/28/21 (H) TRA RPT 4DP 2NR
04/28/21 (H) DP: DRUMMOND, HANNAN, MCKAY, MCCABE
04/28/21 (H) NR: CRONK, HOPKINS
05/03/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/03/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/05/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced SB 65.
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff
Senator Kiehl
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Senator Kiehl, prime sponsor,
presented SB 65.
Robert Craig, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 65.
JACOB KELLY, M.D.
Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 65.
ASHLEY CARRICK, Staff
Representative Adam Wool
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Wool, prime
sponsor, answered questions during the hearing on HB 87.
ANDREW DUNMIRE, Attorney
Legislative Legal & Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
87.
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, answered questions during
the hearing on HB 87.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:53 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Vance, Drummond,
Snyder, and Claman were present at the call to order.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, Eastman, and Kurka arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
SB 65-LIABILITY CONSULTING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
1:03:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 65(JUD), "An Act relating to immunity for
consulting physicians, podiatrists, osteopaths, advanced
practice registered nurses, physician assistants, chiropractors,
dentists, optometrists, and pharmacists." [Before the committee
was HCS CSSB 65(HSS).]
1:03:55 PM
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, Alaska State Legislature, introduced SB 65
as prime sponsor. He said that SB 65 is a proposed tort bill
pertaining to health care. He explained that health care
providers regularly consult formally and informally with
colleagues. He characterized the informal, uncompensated
consultations as "curbside consultations" which take place both
in person and telephonically. He further qualified a curbside
consultation as one in which there exists no financial or
business relationship between providers, and the consulted
provider as having no doctor/patient relationship with the
patient. He explained that a case had been brought before the
Minnesota Supreme Court in which it had been ruled that a
healthcare provider who had no doctor/patient relationship was
required to defend his/herself against a medical malpractice
claim. He stated that the effect of the ruling in the case had
resulted in providers ceasing to provide uncompensated
consultations or reconsidering whether to establish a
doctor/patient relationship in such cases. He suggested that SB
65 would limit liability to the treating physician or provider.
He added that SB 65 would further limit that liability and would
not be shifted [from a treating physician] nor would it be
reduced.
1:08:54 PM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Senator Kiehl, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of prime sponsor, presented a sectional
analysis during the hearing on SB 65, [included in the committee
packet] which read as follows: [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1 of the bill creates a new section in AS 09.55:
Sec. 09.55.552(a): Consulting physicians, osteopaths,
podiatrists, advanced practice registered nurses,
physician assistants, chiropractors, dentists,
optometrists, pharmacists, physical therapists, and
occupational therapists are not liable for providing a
consultation if they meet a list of requirements that
establishes the consultant was not compensated and
had no doctor-patient relationship.
Sec. 09.55.552(b): The health care provider cannot use
the consultant's advice to reduce his or her own
liability in a medical malpractice case.
Sec. 09.55.552(c): Defines the health care providers
and health care facilities covered by this bill
1:09:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN introduced invited testimony.
1:09:49 PM
ROBERT CRAIG, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Heart and Vascular
Institute, testified in support of SB 65. He explained that the
members of the Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute were
cardiologists who remain on call to treating physicians
throughout the state for uncompensated consultations pertaining
to cardiovascular care. He stated that the institute remained
committed to provide timely and accurate medical expertise for
patients under another physician's care to aid in care and
transportation decisions. He stated that the alternate to
uncompensated consultations would be for the consulted physician
to instruct the treating physician to either refer the patient
for a paid consultation or to transport the patient to the
consulting physician, either of which could delay care and
increase costs. He stated that the goal of the institute's
physicians is to provide high quality and low-cost cardiac
service to the state's healthcare providers.
1:11:39 PM}
JACOB KELLY, M.D., Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute,
testified in support of SB 65. He stated that he was a heart
failure cardiologist at the Alaska Heart and Vascular Institute
and had been practicing medicine and providing consultation
during his four years in Alaska. He explained that requests for
consultation, occasionally in excess of 20 per day, occurred
during all hours and from all areas of the state. He explained
that physicians calling for consultations represent a variety of
different practitioners who may need consultation to aid the
safety and comfort of their patients. He explained that, should
physicians become wary of the risk of litigation, inappropriate
and costly requests for [patient] transfers and care may occur
for common conditions. He suggested that allowing for curbside
consultation is helpful to all fields of medicine to increase
the safety and quality of all local patient care.
1:16:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated his support for immunity for the
professions listed in the bill, and asked whether family
therapists, acupuncturists, ophthalmologists, and massage
therapists, among others should also receive immunity should SB
65 pass.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that it had been considered to use the
term "health care providers," and a more specific list had been
determined to be most appropriate. He added that
ophthalmologists are licensed physicians and would be included.
He further explained that the immunity granted with the passage
of SB 65 pertained to the scope of practice, potential risk to
patients, and the ability of the treating health care
professional to independently evaluate and analyze the advice
that he/she is given [during a curbside consultation]. He
stated that the list had been adjusted through the hearing
process and includes professions that he deemed appropriate, and
that immunity granted should be carefully considered when making
tort reform.
1:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that occupational therapists are
listed in the bill; however, family therapists are not. He
recalled that there had been a situation in which a supervisor
at a youth detention facility was unable to be prosecuted for a
sexual relationship with a minor due to [the category of the
detention officer] not being included in the list of those who
may be prosecuted. He asked whether a court would be likely to
rule that the immunity as proposed in SB 65 would not apply to
family therapists.
1:19:55 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE answered that courts in Alaska have ruled that
medical malpractice cases are treated differently than other
cases of alleged negligence. She referred to the ruling in
Smith vs. Radecki in which it was established that a special
relationship exists between a physician and a patient. She
further explained that other cases of alleged negligence are
evaluated on a "foreseeability" test. She added that
individuals not listed in SB 65 would still be subject to
potential liability for negligence under foreseeability and duty
of care.
1:20:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why a family therapist was not
included in the list of professions.
1:21:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered that the categories of professions listed
in SB 65 specifically relate to medical malpractice and that a
family therapist would never fall into that category.
1:21:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained his intent was to address liability
among physical health practitioners and not mental health
practitioners, the dichotomy of which exists elsewhere in
statute.
1:21:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to a case in the State of Minnesota
[included in the committee packet] entitled "SB 65 Additional
Document - Warren v. Dinter Supreme Court of Minnesota April 17,
2019 (Distributed by HJUD Committee)," in which the court was
specific in its ruling that the case did not pertain to curbside
consultations. He asked why the perception following the ruling
was that it did pertain to curbside consultations.
1:22:22 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that, while a dissenting opinion in the
ruling did not have precedential value, the matter of the ruling
having no pertinence to the curbside consultations was a
controversial one. He stated that the ruling having pertinence
to cases in which there did not exist a doctor/patient
relationship likely contributed to the perception that there
exists a risk in consultation when no such relationship exists.
He suggested that HB 65 would further define boundaries which
remained unclear following the ruling in the State of Minnesota.
1:23:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN postulated that the ruling in the Minnesota case,
including case precedent in Alaska, had taken into consideration
the foreseeability of harm and he asked why the ruling in the
State of Minnesota would have an effect different from those
upon which the courts in Alaska had already ruled.
1:24:09 PM
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE stated that the ruling in Smith vs. Radecki
held that a doctor/patient relationship must exist [to allow for
litigation for malpractice] and that footnotes in the case
address but do not fully explore fact patterns which may result
in the existence of a doctor/patient relationship. She noted
that another case in the State of Rhode Island that held a
similar ruling to Smith vs. Radecki did not offer any additional
clarity on when the doctor/patient relationship exists.
1:24:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked at what point a doctor/patient
relationship exists in telehealth consultations.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE answered that telehealth consultations would be
categorized the same as in person visits with the passage of SB
65, and that the question of malpractice liability exists when a
provider consults another provider. She added further that
legal malpractice precedents existed in which liability to an
attorney could occur despite a client not having formally
retained the attorney. She stated that, in cases of medical
malpractice liability, the precedent of the legal liability
could be applied similarly to medical malpractice liability.
1:26:54 PM
SENATOR KIEHL added that SB 65 proposed to broadly define that a
doctor/patient relationship shall exist if a doctor is paid by
the patient, and immunity would not apply.
1:27:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled, in reference to Representative
Vance's line of questioning, that, during the COVID-19 pandemic,
health care providers had encountered difficulties in providing
care via telehealth and in establishing a doctor/patient
relationship due to travel restrictions, and telehealth
consultations had resulted in doctor/patient relationships and
would not be considered the curbside consultation that was
contemplated in SB 65.
1:28:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether, similar to attorneys
providing consultations pro-bono, doctors have an equivalent,
uncompensated consulting relationship with certain patients.
SENATOR KIEHL stated that SB 65 pertained only to uncompensated
consultations between health care providers and not to those
between physicians and patients.
1:29:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, should SB 65 pass, what other
professions may be affected, such as immunity for structural
engineers such as in the case of a building collapse.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that tort statutes treat medical
malpractice differently than other cases involving malpractice.
He added that there exist several court rulings in Alaska which
address medical malpractice as separate from other forms of
malpractice.
1:31:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HCS CSSB 65(HSS). After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
1:32:13 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:32:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HCS CSSB 65(HSS) was held over.
1:33:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was recessed at 1:34 p.m.
to a call of the chair.
2:46:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 2:47 p.m. Present at the call back to
order were Representatives Claman, Vance, and Eastman.
HB 87-ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLES
2:46:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 87, "An Act relating to electric-assisted
bicycles."
2:47:16 PM
ASHLEY CARRICK, Staff, Representative Adam Wool, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of prime sponsor, answered questions
during the hearing on HB 87. She referred to questions that the
committee had requested follow up on pertaining to HB 87 and
recommended that Legislative Legal and Research Services provide
answers to those. She referred first to questions that were
posed on Section 2 of the bill which pertained to municipality
regulations for e-bikes used on sidewalks.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the question pertaining to Section 2 of
the bill was whether municipalities would be prohibited from
regulating the use of e-bikes on sidewalks, should HB 87 pass.
2:48:43 PM
ANDREW DUNMIRE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Alaska State Legislature, answered questions during
the hearing on HB 87. He opined that, should HB 87 pass,
municipalities would not be restricted in regulating the use of
e-bikes on their own pathways. He referenced Section 3 of the
bill that specifies that municipalities may enact regulations
for e-bikes for their locality.
2:49:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled an earlier question posed by
Representative Vance whether it would be beneficial to include
the three-tiered classification such as exists in the State of
California.
2:50:13 PM
MR. DUNMIRE stated his understanding of the question to be
whether an amendment classifying e-bikes in a three-tiered
structure would be beneficial, and he suggested that such an
amendment would be a policy decision to be determined by the
legislature. He suggested that, should the legislature deem
such a classification system to be unnecessary, his
recommendation would be not to include a definition since it
would limit how e-bikes are defined.
2:51:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE added that her constituents had endorsed
including the three-tiered definition of e-bikes as proposed by
the People for Bikes to achieve uniformity among different
states' regulations. She suggested that the question of whether
to amend the bill to include the three-tiered classification
should be at the discretion of the bill sponsor, and she offered
her understanding that including a three-tiered definition may
not provide any legal benefit.
2:51:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, answered questions during the hearing on HB 87. He
offered additional information to describe the various types of
vehicles and assisted bicycles. He stated that there exist
bikes which can be operated by a throttle without pedaling and
that those are not considered in the proposed bill. He added
that it remained a policy decision for the legislature to
determine whether to include the three-tiered classification
system or to combine class 1 and class 3 e-bikes. He added that
it would be difficult to ascertain motor size and whether a
pedal assist to engage a motor by simply looking at an e-bike.
He added that motor size would be capped at [a maximum] of 750
watts and the speed capped at 20 miles per hour.
2:53:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled an earlier question posed by
Representative Eastman pertaining to vehicles that have two,
non-tandem wheels and how they relate to the proposed bill.
MR. DUNMIRE explained that a Segway, which consists of two
tandem wheels on which a rider balances, would be included in
the definition, and that a three-wheeled mobility cart, such as
one might see at a grocery store, would not.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated his understanding of the intent of
the bill would be to allow devices such as a Segway be allowed
to operate on a sidewalk and asked why [a three-wheeled mobility
cart, such as one might see at a grocery store] would not.
During the discussion, he asked whether HB 87 would forbid
grocery store scooters from being operated on a sidewalk.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL answered that HB 87 permits only those
devices which have operable pedals to be classified as e-bikes,
and that neither a Segway nor an assistive cart would be
classified as an e-bike [should HB 87 pass]. He added that a
tricycle with an electric assist might be included in the
definition should it have operable pedals.
2:56:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled an earlier question posed by
Representative Snyder in which she referenced assistive
technology as defined in AS 45.45.600 and whether HB 87
pertained to any of those devices, which she had suggested that
it would not.
MR. DUNMIRE stated his belief that Representative Snyder's
assertion that HB 87 would not pertain to assistive technologies
described in the statute was correct.
2:57:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that replacing the word
"bicycle" with "cycle" would allow for devices with one to three
wheels to be categorized as e-bikes under the proposed bill and
would include tricycles and unicycles.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether Representative Eastman had
suggested that e-cycle be the referenced terminology instead of
e-bikes for devices with one to three, but not four, wheels as
currently written in the proposed bill. He offered to consider
the change to the language if there existed sufficient public
interest on the matter, and if there existed many individuals
operating electric assisted three-wheeled bikes. He stated his
preference to maintain the word "bicycles" in the proposed bill.
2:59:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Carrick whether the committee and invited
testimony had answered all the questions previously posed by the
committee.
MS. CARRICK stated her belief that, for the most part, it had,
and she invited additional questions should they arise. She
added that Representative Kurka had asked whether gas- or fuel-
operated motors would be included in the definition of e-bikes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL explained that fuel-driven assisted bicycles
with an engine size of 50 cubic centimeters (cc) or less are
classified as a motor-driven cycle.
3:00:19 PM
MS. CARRICK explained that terms are defined in the bill. In
Section 5, on page 3, line 22 is the definition of an electric
personal motor vehicle that differentiates between a Segway and
a motorized grocery cart. She added that in Section 6, on page
3, line 28 motor vehicle is defined, and on page 4, line 2,
motor-driven cycle is referenced. She explained that an engine
which is 50 cubic centimeters (cc) or less would be covered and
those greater than 50 cc would be classified as a motorcycle.
She pointed out that there exists a difference between a
"motorcycle" and a "motor-driven cycle" and suggested that there
exists some confusion between the two.
[HB 87 was held over.]
3:02:20 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 65 v. W 5.5.2021.PDF |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2021.pdf |
HHSS 4/27/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/29/2021 3:00:00 PM HHSS 5/4/2021 3:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM SHSS 2/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Sectional Analysis ver. W 5.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Explanation of Changes ver. A to ver. W 5.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Supporting Document - Letters Received by 4.28.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Additional Document - Warren v. Dinter Supreme Court of Minnesota April 17, 2019 (Distributed by HJUD Committee).pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| SB 65 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 2.12.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/17/2021 1:00:00 PM |
SB 65 |
| HB 87 v. A 2.18.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM HTRA 4/20/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Sponsor Statement v. A 4.20.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM HTRA 4/20/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Sectional Analysis v. A 5.3.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Supporting Document - People for Bikes Factsheet 4.20.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM HTRA 4/20/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Supporting Document - JMBA Letter 4.27.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/3/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Supporting Document - Testimony Received as of 5.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB 87 Fiscal Note DOA-DMV 4.16.2021.pdf |
HJUD 5/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/7/2021 1:00:00 PM HTRA 4/20/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |