Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120

03/17/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSHB 287(JUD) Out of Committee
Heard & Held
Moved CSHB 386(JUD) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                       HB 386 - CITATIONS                                                                                   
1:08:43 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 386,  "An Act establishing  a uniform  format and                                                               
procedure  for citations  for certain  violations  of state  law;                                                               
relating to the form, issuance,  and disposition of citations for                                                               
certain violations; relating to  certain crimes and penalties for                                                               
noncompliance  with citations;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
1:08:59 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  MIKE HAWKER,  Alaska State  Legislature, informed                                                               
the committee that  HB 386, the "Ticket  Simplification Act," was                                                               
crafted  largely  with  the  assistance  and  insistence  of  the                                                               
Department  of  Public  Safety   (DPS).    This  legislation,  he                                                               
explained,  provides DPS  the authority  to  prescribe a  uniform                                                               
citation format  and process for  moving citations forward.   The                                                               
intent  is to  have much  greater efficiency  with the  necessary                                                               
paperwork  for  the state's  justice  system  and facilitate  the                                                               
utilization of electronic records  for which consistent format is                                                               
essential for processing.                                                                                                       
1:11:30 PM                                                                                                                    
JULI  LUCKY,  Staff,  Representative Mike  Hawker,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  relayed on  behalf of  the sponsor,  Representative                                                               
Hawker,  that the  legislation has  a lot  of redundant  language                                                               
throughout  the  63  sections  of  HB  386.    She  directed  the                                                               
committee's  attention to  a document  entitled  "HB 386  Uniform                                                               
Citations - Overview."   She explained that Sections  21-31 of HB
386  encompass the  uniform  citation process  and  format.   The                                                               
aforementioned  sections outline  the  format  of each  citation,                                                               
clarify when  an officer  can issue a  citation versus  making an                                                               
arrest, and  set standard and  consistent deadlines  for delivery                                                               
of citations to the court,  answering citations when not required                                                               
to go  to court, and what  must be done with  scheduled offenses.                                                               
Scheduled offenses are offenses for  which one doesn't have to go                                                               
to  court  and  for  which  there is  a  specific  fine  or  bail                                                               
associated  with  the  offense.    These  sections  also  outline                                                               
recordkeeping  processes  and  have   a  consistent  penalty  for                                                               
failure to pay a  fine or appear in court.   Ms. Lucky noted that                                                               
the  legislation  is  long  because  the  various  deadlines  are                                                               
located  in  the  [corresponding]   statute.    This  legislation                                                               
consolidates those  deadlines in this statute  and references the                                                               
individual statutes to AS 12.25.175-12.25.230.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES   recalled  that  the   sponsor  statement                                                               
relates the  goal of allowing more  fines to be paid  through the                                                               
courts' online  e-payment system.   However, the language  in the                                                               
legislation refers to mailing or  personally delivering the fines                                                               
to the clerk of the court.   She asked whether the language in HB
386 would allow payment online.                                                                                                 
MS. LUCKY  offered her understanding  that since the  language to                                                               
which  Representative  Holmes referred  to  is  exists, it  would                                                               
allow  fines to  be paid  online.   However,  she suggested  that                                                               
perhaps DPS  staff could  answer as she  isn't familiar  with the                                                               
process of payment.                                                                                                             
1:14:58 PM                                                                                                                    
KATHERINE  PETERSON, Lieutenant,  Alaska State  Troopers, Support                                                               
Services,   Department  of   Public   Safety,   in  response   to                                                               
Representative  Holmes,   answered  that  citizens   are  already                                                               
allowed  to  pay  fines  online   under  the  existing  statutory                                                               
language that  HB 386 uses.   She added  that the language  of HB
386 allows the  electronic transfer of information  to the courts                                                               
in  a more  timely fashion.   The  aforementioned allows  payment                                                               
online in  a quicker and  easier fashion.   Currently, even  if a                                                               
court is set up to allow  online payments, there is delay because                                                               
the court  hasn't received the  citation or entered  the citation                                                               
into its system.                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  surmised  then   that  the  language  she                                                               
referenced is used in statute  and should allow online e-payments                                                               
without amending HB 386.                                                                                                        
LIEUTENANT PETERSON confirmed that to be correct.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to the  language on page 7, asked                                                               
how the language "shall accept" the citation would be enforced.                                                             
1:17:05 PM                                                                                                                    
DAVID   BROWER,  Assistant   Attorney  General,   Legal  Services                                                               
Section, Criminal  Division, Department of Law  (DOL), noted that                                                               
he helped  draft HB  386.   He explained  that he  didn't believe                                                               
that the proposed  language change would matter  because the same                                                               
individuals  who won't  accept the  citation can't  be forced  to                                                               
sign  the  citation.   He  said  he  thought the  language  would                                                               
streamline the process  as the [intent] of the  legislation is to                                                               
make  things occur  quicker without  signing.   The language,  he                                                               
explained  further,  would  eliminate  the  necessity  of  having                                                               
certain offenses for  which one has to sign  and certain offenses                                                               
for which  one doesn't have  to sign.   He noted that  in another                                                               
section  the   language  may  allow  the   person  [refusing  the                                                               
citation] to be arrested.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  surmised then  that the final  authority is                                                               
with the arresting  officer who serves the citation.   He said he                                                               
wasn't clear  that the  language of  HB 386  says that  those who                                                               
refuse the citation can be arrested.                                                                                            
MR. BROWER  said that's already in  Title 12.  There  are certain                                                               
offenses  for which  an  officer doesn't  have  the authority  to                                                               
arrest unless the individual  refuses to identify himself/herself                                                               
or (indisc.).   In further response to  Representative Gatto, Mr.                                                               
Brower  pointed out  that  if  an officer  is  going  to issue  a                                                               
citation the  officer has to  have probable cause to  believe the                                                               
offense  occurred, which  is the  same with  a driving  under the                                                               
influence (DUI) charge.   The officer, in a situation  in which a                                                               
potential DUI  offender refused the  field sobriety  tests, would                                                               
have  to have  enough articulable  reasons to  probable cause  to                                                               
arrest without the field sobriety tests.                                                                                        
1:21:08 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as  to the reasoning for replacing                                                               
the deleted  language on  page 6,  lines 10-11,  with "reasonably                                                           
MR. BROWER  answered that  the language  change doesn't  have any                                                               
practical difference.  He opined  that the deleted language, "has                                                               
reasonable  and   probable  cause  to  believe",   is  redundant.                                                               
Probable  cause is  the language  used  when an  officer makes  a                                                               
determination  to  arrest someone  for  a  particular crime;  the                                                               
elements  of the  crime  have to  be  met.   In  this case,  [the                                                               
elements of  the crime] are  whether the individual  is dangerous                                                               
or  has  committed  a  particular  crime  and  there  is  already                                                               
probable cause for that crime.   He said that the primary concern                                                               
of the officer at the time  is whether the individual is a danger                                                               
to himself/herself or others.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  pointed out  that the language  on page                                                               
3, lines  13-14, which is  new language, is essentially  the same                                                               
as the language on  page 3, lines 6-7.  He  asked whether a peace                                                               
officer with  probable cause who boards  a boat has the  right to                                                               
search without a warrant for things in plain view.                                                                              
MR. BROWER  suggested that if the  items are in plain  view, then                                                               
the officer isn't searching.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  clarified  then   whether  in  such  a                                                               
situation the office could seize items without a warrant.                                                                       
MR. BROWER offered  his belief that if the  items are contraband,                                                               
the  officer already  has  the  right to  seize  the  items.   He                                                               
clarified  that  although  the  section  has  been  repealed  and                                                               
reenacted,  the officer  still has  to have  probable cause  of a                                                               
violation prior  to boarding  the boat.   The  aforementioned, he                                                               
pointed out, isn't new.  Certainly,  if the officer is aboard the                                                               
boat and  sees contraband  in plain sight,  the officer  would be                                                               
able to seize it.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  related  his  understanding  that  per                                                               
Section 8,  the officer will  be able  to board the  craft simply                                                               
because the officer  has probable cause to  believe the violation                                                               
has  occurred.   He related  his  assumption that  some of  those                                                               
violations wouldn't  necessarily have given the  officer probable                                                               
cause  to   board  the  watercraft.     Representative  Gruenberg                                                               
expressed concern  that the  officer would be  able to  board the                                                               
watercraft and then  things that wouldn't have  otherwise been in                                                               
plain view would  be in plain view and could  be seized without a                                                               
search warrant.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked  if under the current  law and the                                                               
proposed law  whether an  officer would be  able to  seize things                                                               
that would  be in  view once  the officer  can legally  board the                                                               
vessel.   Therefore,  would  that allow  the  officer, under  the                                                               
plain  view  doctrine,  to  seize   items  he/she  couldn't  have                                                               
otherwise seized without a warrant, he asked.                                                                                   
MR.  BROWER  offered his  understanding  that  Section 8  doesn't                                                               
change existing law.                                                                                                            
MS. LUCKY  surmised that  Representative Gruenberg's  question is                                                               
whether, under current law, officers can board and seize.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  expressed concern that Section  8 would                                                               
give  the officer  a legal  reason  to board  where none  existed                                                               
before and  without reference to  probable cause.  He  offered to                                                               
obtain  information   on  this  matter  from   Legislative  Legal                                                               
1:27:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked if  the deleted language,  "be in                                                               
writing" in Section  14, is a requirement  that's found elsewhere                                                               
in HB 386.                                                                                                                      
MR. BROWER remarked that he  couldn't conceive of a citation that                                                               
isn't in writing.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether, in AS 12.25.175-                                                                        
12.25.230 there is  a requirement that a citation  be in writing.                                                               
If there  isn't, then he  opined that somewhere  [statute] should                                                               
specify that citations must be in writing.                                                                                      
MR. BROWER remarked that a  citation must contain certain things,                                                               
which would necessarily be in writing.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG requested  that he  be directed  to the                                                               
page and line of such a requirement.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG referred  to  the language  on page  4,                                                               
line  5, which  is elsewhere  in the  legislation.   The language                                                               
requires the department  to deposit the citation and  a copy with                                                               
the court on or before the  10th working day after the citation's                                                               
issuance.  Representative Gruenberg  expressed the desire that it                                                               
wouldn't  be   grounds  for  a   motion  for  dismissal   if  the                                                               
aforementioned fails to be done in a timely fashion.                                                                            
MS. LUCKY directed Representative Gruenberg  to page 9, lines 21-                                                               
MR. BROWER pointed out that the  language on page 6, lines 30-31,                                                               
specifies that "the officer shall  prepare a written citation and                                                               
issue it to the person".                                                                                                        
1:31:17 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  pointed out  that on  page 6,  lines 10-11,                                                               
the language "has  reasonable and probable cause  to believe" has                                                               
been replaced  with "reasonably  believes".   However, throughout                                                           
the  legislation  the language  "probable  cause"  is used.    He                                                               
questioned whether the language should be consistent throughout.                                                                
MR. BROWER explained that in  any crime probable cause means that                                                               
the officer has probable cause  to believe that every element has                                                               
occurred.   Therefore, the language "probable  cause" didn't seem                                                               
to  fit the  provision that  addresses a  situation in  which the                                                               
officer believes  the person  is dangerous  because there  are no                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, returning to  the discussion of Section 14                                                               
and the  deletion of the  language "be in writing",  related that                                                               
he reviewed  the statute reference to  AS 12.25.175-12.25.230 and                                                               
surmised  that  "written  citation"  means the  same  as  "be  in                                                               
MR. BROWER replied yes.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  opined that in Section  24 the language                                                               
", as  repealed and reenacted by  sec. 26, ch. 28,  SLA 2000, and                                                               
by sec.  41, ch. 12, SLA  2006," could be deleted.   He suggested                                                               
that  such technical  language could  be  deleted throughout  the                                                               
MS. LUCKY informed  the committee that such language  is found in                                                               
Sections 8 and 24.  She  then explained that the language is part                                                               
of the  Boating Safety  Act, which  will be  repealed and  is why                                                               
there are two duplicative sections.   Therefore, the Session Laws                                                               
of Alaska  (SLA) must  be edited because  when sunsets  occur the                                                               
previous statute takes the place of  the new statute.  In further                                                               
explanation, Ms.  Lucky pointed out  that Sections 8 and  24 have                                                               
different effective  dates because  they're conditional  upon the                                                               
eventual  sunset of  the  Boating  Safety Act.    If the  Boating                                                               
Safety Act never sunsets, Sections 8  and 24 will never come into                                                               
1:35:15 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, referring  to  Section 21  on page  5,                                                               
expressed his  desire that the  citation form should  be required                                                               
to be done  by regulation under the  Administrative Procedure Act                                                               
(APA).   However,  the  language on  page 5,  line  30, uses  the                                                               
language "may" rather  than "shall".  Without such  a change, the                                                               
commissioner could  simply decide to  adopt standards and  not do                                                               
it  through regulation.   He  explained  that the  aforementioned                                                               
change would  clarify that  the form of  the regulations  must go                                                               
through  the  regular notice  and  public  comment procedure  for                                                               
adoption of regulations under APA.                                                                                              
MR.  BROWER noted  his agreement  with Representative  Gruenberg,                                                               
but added  that he had no  doubt that the DPS  commissioner would                                                               
adopt regulations,  which would be  pursuant to AS 44.62.   Since                                                               
citations  affect  the  general  public  it will  have  to  be  a                                                               
CHAIR  RAMRAS  surmised this  had  to  do  with migrating  to  an                                                               
electronic citation  form.  He  inquired as to  Lieutenant Dial's                                                               
thoughts  regarding whether  the  language on  page  5, line  30,                                                               
should be "may" or "shall".                                                                                                     
1:37:26 PM                                                                                                                    
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant/Deputy  Commander, A Detachment, Division                                                               
of Alaska  State Troopers, Department  of Public  Safety, related                                                               
that at  this time the  department would prefer "may".   However,                                                               
he  said  that  the  department   wouldn't  oppose  changing  the                                                               
language  to "shall"  because he  believes  the department  would                                                               
adopt regulations anyway.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that  it's extremely important to                                                               
provide the  opportunity for  public comment on  the form  of the                                                               
LIEUTENANT DIAL responded  that he didn't see any  reason why the                                                               
department wouldn't accept that proposed change.                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS interjected that he prefers "may".                                                                                 
1:38:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON asked  if  there is  any other  provision,                                                               
beyond  that  in Section  22,  that  replaces the  language  "has                                                               
reasonable  and  probable  cause  to  believe"  with  "reasonably                                                           
MR.  BROWER  said that  he  would  have  to research  that  issue                                                               
further,  but noted  that something  similar is  in Title  47 for                                                               
mental commitments.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON expressed concern  and opined that he's not                                                               
convinced  that  [the  proposed   language]  is  the  appropriate                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, returning  to the language on  page 5, line                                                               
30,  asked  if the  DPS  commissioner,  as  a matter  of  course,                                                               
regularly adopts  regulations under AS  44.62.  If not,  is there                                                               
an alternative, he asked.                                                                                                       
MR.  BROWER   informed  the  committee  that   any  commissioner,                                                               
commission, or board that adopts  regulations does so under Title                                                               
44.    He   then  pointed  out  that  Section   21(b)  says  "The                                                               
commissioner  of   public  safety  shall  provide   or  prescribe                                                               
citation forms  for use by  peace officers and other  persons who                                                               
are  authorized  by law  to  issue  citations."   Currently,  the                                                               
things required  to be included in  a citation are in  statute in                                                               
court rule and DPS currently has  a uniform citation that it uses                                                               
and is  used by  some other  police agencies in  the state.   Mr.                                                               
Brower  said  that at  this  point  he  didn't know  whether  the                                                               
commissioner of DPS has  adopted regulations regarding citations,                                                               
but reiterated that any regulations are adopted under AS 44.62.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if using  "shall" would be a hindrance                                                               
such that there  may be regulations that ought  to be established                                                               
outside of AS 44.62.                                                                                                            
MR. BROWER pointed  out that Section 48 amends  AS 44.41.020 such                                                               
that DPS  "shall establish by  regulation standardized  forms for                                                               
citations ..." while  under Section 21 similar  language uses the                                                               
term "may".                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  related his understanding  that Section                                                               
21  only relates  to the  forms  of the  citation.   He asked  if                                                               
that's correct.                                                                                                                 
MS. LUCKY answered that she interpreted it that way as well.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  surmised,  then,  that  Section  21(c)                                                               
might  be read  in  conflict with  Section 48.    Since it's  the                                                               
intent to  require regulations under  Section 48, he  opined that                                                               
the  "may" language  on page  5, line  30, should  be changed  to                                                               
"shall" so as to avoid any conflict.                                                                                            
MS. LUCKY stated that she supported such a change.                                                                              
CHAIR RAMRAS,  upon determining  no one  else wished  to testify,                                                               
closed public testimony.                                                                                                        
1:44:30 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  RAMRAS made  a motion  to  adopt Amendment  1, which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
     Page 2, lines 14, following "section.":                                                                                    
       DELETE "The citation is considered a summons for a                                                                       
     failure to obey a citation under AS 12.25.230, and the                                                                     
     court may issue a bench warrant."                                                                                          
     Page 2 line 29, through page 3, line 2:  DELETE ALL                                                                        
     MATERIAL AND INSERT:                                                                                                       
     "* Sec. 6. AS 04.21.065(j) is repealed and reenacted                                                                     
     to read:                                                                                                                   
       (j) A person cited under this section is guilty of                                                                       
     failure to obey a citation under AS 12.25.230 if the                                                                       
     person fails to pay the bail amount established under                                                                      
     (g) of this section or to appear in court as                                                                               
     Page 10, following line 13                                                                                                 
     INSERT a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
     "* Sec. 32. AS 16.05.165 (a) is amended to read:                                                                         
      (a) When a peace officer stops or contacts a person                                                                       
     concerning a violation of this title except AS 16.51                                                                       
     and AS 16.52 or of a regulation adopted under this                                                                         
     title except AS 16.51 and AS 16.52 that is a                                                                               
     misdemeanor, the peace officer may, in the officer's                                                                       
     discretion, issue a citation to the person as provided                                                                     
     in AS 12.25.175 - 12.25.230 [AS 12.25.180] .                                                                           
     RENUMBER following sections accordingly                                                                                    
     Page 10, line 26 following "required."                                                                                     
        DELETE "The citation is considered a summons for                                                                        
     failure to obey a citation under AS 12.25.230, and the                                                                     
     court may issue a bench warrant."                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                   
MS.  LUCKY explained  that  Amendment 1  is  basically clean  up.                                                               
Amendment 1  inserts citations  that were  omitted and  omits the                                                               
language "The citation  is considered a summons for  a failure to                                                               
obey a  citation under AS  12.25.230, and  the court may  issue a                                                               
bench  warrant."   He  requested  that Mr.  Brower  speak to  the                                                               
aforementioned language being deleted by Amendment 1.                                                                           
1:45:30 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  BROWER explained  that numerous  existing statutes  indicate                                                               
that an individual who was cited  into court to either pay a fine                                                               
or  attend  court   and  did  neither,  the   citation  would  be                                                               
considered a summons for a  misdemeanor.  However, he opined that                                                               
the language was  meaningless.  If the original  citation was for                                                               
a violation,  it couldn't  revert to a  misdemeanor.   It's clear                                                               
that failure to  obey a citation is a violation  of AS 12.25.230,                                                               
he stated.                                                                                                                      
MS.  LUCKY, in  response to  Representative Gruenberg,  clarified                                                               
that the document [entitled "Amendments  to HB 386 (26-LS1525\A)]                                                               
merely describes Amendment 1.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES withdrew her objection.                                                                                   
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                      
1:47:00 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made  a motion to adopt  Amendment 2, as                                                               
     Page 5, line 30;                                                                                                           
          Delete "may"                                                                                                          
          Insert "shall"                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for discussion.                                                                               
CHAIR RAMRAS  then announced that  without objection  Amendment 2                                                               
was adopted.                                                                                                                    
1:47:30 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report  HB 386, as amended, out                                                               
of   committee   with    individual   recommendations   and   the                                                               
accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON  objected, and reiterated concern  that the                                                               
change on page  6, lines 10-11, could be utilized  elsewhere.  He                                                               
then removed his objection.                                                                                                     
There  being no  further  objection, CSHB  386(JUD) was  reported                                                               
from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
01 HB386 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 386
02 HB386 Bill v. A.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 386
03 HB386 Overview.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 386
04 HB386-LAW-CRIM-03-12-10.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 386
05 HB386 Amendments 2010 03 15.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 386
01 HB409(STA) Sponsor Statement v. S.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
02 HB409 HSTA CS v. S.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
03 HB409(STA) v. S Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
04 HB409 Legal Memo for CS 409(STA).pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
05 HB409 AG Legal Analysis.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
06 HB409-1-1-031210-ADM-Y.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
07 HB409 NCSL states respond to Supreme Court ruling.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
08 HB409 news stories and opinions.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
09 HB0409-1-1-031210-ADM-Y.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
10 HB409 AARP ltr of support.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
11 HB409 Explaination of changes.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
12 HB409 HJUD Amendment S.4.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
13 HB409 HJUD Amendment S.5.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
14 HB409 HJUD Amendment S.7.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
15 HB409 HJUD Conceptual Amendment.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409
16 HB409 HJUD Amendment S.2.pdf HJUD 3/17/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 409