Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532

05/10/2017 09:00 AM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
Moved CSHB 103(FIN) Out of Committee
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
<Pending Referral> <Bill Hearing Canceled>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 222(L&C) am                                                                                             
     "An Act relating to the  licensure of nail technicians;                                                                    
     relating to  the practice of manicuring;  and providing                                                                    
     for an effective date."                                                                                                    
9:27:58 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair MacKinnon introduced HB 222.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, offered a sponsor                                                                          
statement for the bill (copy on file):                                                                                          
     The  amended House  Labor &  Commerce version  of House                                                                    
     Bill  222  reverses  legislation  passed  by  the  2015                                                                    
     Alaska  State Legislature  that  updated the  licensing                                                                    
     requirements  for  Alaskan  manicurists.  The  enrolled                                                                    
     House  Bill 131,  which  became  effective on  December                                                                    
     31st,  2015  increased  the  training  requirements  to                                                                    
     become a licensed nail technician  from 12 theory hours                                                                    
     with no  examination to 250 practical  and theory hours                                                                    
     with a  state board  examination. Prior to  the passage                                                                    
     of  HB   131,  manicurists  could  take   12  hours  of                                                                    
     coursework and receive a  manicurist's license, or they                                                                    
     could   take  250   hours   and   become  an   advanced                                                                    
     manicurist.  The 2015  legislation  eliminated the  12-                                                                    
     hour  license and  instead  required  all licensees  to                                                                    
     take  250  classroom  hours.  The  updated  legislation                                                                    
     negatively   impacted   practicing   nail   technicians                                                                    
     seeking license  renewal who were now  required to take                                                                    
     250  hours off  work to  take redundant  coursework. It                                                                    
     also required all  manicurists, including those seeking                                                                    
     license  renewal,  to  take  an  exam  which  was  only                                                                    
     offered in  four languages, creating  equal opportunity                                                                    
     issues for  individuals who may have  difficulties with                                                                    
     language barriers.                                                                                                         
     House Bill 222 in its  original form sought to extend a                                                                    
     grandfather  clause  allowing  individuals who  held  a                                                                    
     manicurists' license  prior to December 2015  to forego                                                                    
     the 250 hours of  instruction in manicuring required of                                                                    
     new applicants.  They would still be  required to prove                                                                    
     250 hours of prior work  experience as a manicurist and                                                                    
     take an examination. The  original version also allowed                                                                    
     test  takers  to  use  foreign  language  interpreters.                                                                    
     However,  the House  Finance Committee  expressed their                                                                    
     concern  with the  arbitrary 250  hours required.  They                                                                    
     thought  this  was   restrictive  and  unnecessary  for                                                                    
     manicurists. The  bill was then  amended to  remove the                                                                    
     requirements  of 250  hours of  coursework and  an exam                                                                    
     and  reverse  the statutes  to  their  prior form.  The                                                                    
     amended version will once again  allow for two types of                                                                    
     licenses; the general  manicurists license requiring 12                                                                    
     hours of training, and  the advanced manicurist license                                                                    
     requiring 250 hours.                                                                                                       
     It  is  the  intention  of  HB 222  is  to  remove  the                                                                    
     unnecessary  burden of  redundant educational  training                                                                    
     hours for  experienced manicurists who  practiced prior                                                                    
     to December 31st, 2015 and  extend equal opportunity to                                                                    
     individuals  who  may  have  difficulty  with  language                                                                    
Representative Claman shared that  832 of the 944 practicing                                                                    
manicurists in  the state  could lose  their jobs  by August                                                                    
31,  2017  if they  could  not  pass  the written  test.  He                                                                    
lamented  that the  unintended job  losses would  negatively                                                                    
affect Alaskan families.                                                                                                        
9:31:35 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative Claman  relayed that  there had  been concern                                                                    
as to  whether human trafficking  related in any way  to the                                                                    
licenses. He shared that it  had been discovered that in the                                                                    
last month someone had come  to the Department of Community,                                                                    
Commerce, and Economic Development  with 50 applications for                                                                    
the 12-hour license, and that  nearly all the applicants had                                                                    
not  physically  been  in  the   state;  the  licenses  were                                                                    
apparently  being  used  in relation  to  human  trafficking                                                                    
efforts  in  other states.  He  said  human trafficking  had                                                                    
never not  been discussed during  the vetting of HB  131. He                                                                    
asserted  that there  was not  much  that could  be done  in                                                                    
Alaska  to  prevent  human   trafficking  in  other  states,                                                                    
particularly at  the expense of  Alaskan jobs. He  felt that                                                                    
the focus  should be  on the job  interests of  Alaskans. He                                                                    
noted  that  the issue  of  hairdressers  with a  manicurist                                                                    
endorsement would be addressed  with an amendment that would                                                                    
assure  that hairdressers  that  were also  doing nail  work                                                                    
would have the manicurist endorsement.                                                                                          
9:33:49 AM                                                                                                                    
SARA PERMAN,  STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT  CLAMAN, reiterated                                                                    
statements  from the  sponsor  regarding the  intent of  the                                                                    
legislation. She addressed the sectional analysis:                                                                              
     Section 1  - Amends  AS 08.13.040 [Meetings  and Exams]                                                                  
     The  Board may  not require  an exam  for an  applicant                                                                    
     seeking licensure  as a manicurist. However,  the Board                                                                    
     may require  an exam for a  licensed manicurist wishing                                                                    
     to  seek  an  additional optional  advanced  manicurist                                                                    
     Section 2  - Amends AS 08.13.080(a)  [Qualifications of                                                                  
     Applicants] Removes language  that all persons applying                                                                    
     to take  an exam for manicuring  must have successfully                                                                    
     completed  250 hours  of  instruction  from a  licensed                                                                    
     school  of  manicuring.  Adds  that  an  instructor  in                                                                    
     hairdressing may  also be  an instructor  in manicuring                                                                    
     for  health and  safety related  courses, and  that the                                                                    
     Board   may  establish   additional  requirements   for                                                                    
     manicuring instructors.                                                                                                    
     Section   3  -   Amends   AS  08.13.080   -  adds   new                                                                  
     subsections:  (e)  An   applicant  for  licensing  must                                                                    
     submit 1) proof of  certification in 12-hour health and                                                                    
     safety course from Board  approved and licensed school,                                                                    
     and  2) pay  required  fees. (f)  An  applicant for  an                                                                    
     advanced  manicurist endorsement  must 1)  already hold                                                                    
     or  be approved  for a  manicurist license,  2) request                                                                    
     the endorsement,  3) submit documentation  of 250-hours                                                                    
     of  required coursework  from  an  approved school,  4)                                                                    
     pass  the  Board approved  exam,  and  5) pay  required                                                                    
     Section  4  - AmendsASO8.13.100(a)  Removes  manicuring                                                                  
     from list of licenses that require exams.                                                                                  
     Section  5  -  Amends  AS  08.13.100(d)  Provides  that                                                                  
     manicurists licensed  in another state are  entitled to                                                                    
     licenses/endorsements    without   taking    additional                                                                    
     training or  exams, given that  they can  provide proof                                                                    
     of completed training that meets Alaska requirements.                                                                      
     Section 6 - Adds new  subsection to AS 08.13.110 d) The                                                                  
     Board  shall  license  a  school  that  offers  12-hour                                                                    
     safety course,  but may  not license  the school  if it                                                                    
     requires greater  than 12 hours  for the  safety course                                                                    
     e) Schools  may seek  approval from  the Board  for the                                                                    
     curriculum for  advanced endorsements. The  Board shall                                                                    
     establish curriculum requirements.                                                                                         
     Section  7  -  Amends  AS  08.13.160(d)  The  licensing                                                                  
     provisions  mentioned in  this chapter  don't apply  to                                                                    
    persons actively taking an approved 12-hour course.                                                                         
     Section 8  - Amends AS 08.13.1  75 Licensed manicurists                                                                  
     applying   for   the   250-hour   advanced   manicurist                                                                    
     endorsement are  entitled to a temporary  license while                                                                    
     applying for  the exam as  long as they  are supervised                                                                    
     by a licensed manicurist.                                                                                                  
     Section  9  -  Amends   AS  08.13.185(a)  Adds  initial                                                                  
     licensing   and  renewals   for  the   endorsement  for                                                                    
     advanced  manicurist  training  to  fees  that  may  be                                                                    
     collected by DCCED.                                                                                                        
     Section   10  -   Repeals   08.13.082(e)  Repeals   the                                                                  
     apprenticeship term periods set by the Board.                                                                              
     Section  11  - Repeals  Section  13,  Ch. 27  SLA  2015                                                                  
     Repeals  the   grandfather  clause   set  in   HB  131:                                                                    
     "allowing a person who holds  a valid license on Jan 1,                                                                    
     2016  to  continue  practicing manicuring  until  their                                                                    
     license normally expires. Subsection  (1) states that a                                                                    
     person is allowed to renew  their license before August                                                                    
     31, 2017, if the  person meets preexisting requirements                                                                    
     under  AS 08.13  as it  existed prior  to Jan  1, 2016.                                                                    
     Subsection  (2) states  that a  person may  renew their                                                                    
     license  for an  additional  period  before August  31,                                                                    
     2019  if the  person  submits (A)  proofof250 hours  of                                                                    
     satisfactory work experience and (B) has taken and                                                                         
    passed a written or oral exam under AS 08.13.090."                                                                          
     Section 12 - Sets the effective date. Effective                                                                          
9:37:35 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator von Imhof referred to  Section 6. She questioned why                                                                    
the  board  would  not  also  license  schools  for  courses                                                                    
exceeding 12 hours.                                                                                                             
Representative Claman felt that  the limit was a "curiosity"                                                                    
about the prior way that  the law had been written; however,                                                                    
that was  how the statute that  he was seeking to  reset had                                                                    
been written in 2015.                                                                                                           
Senator  von Imhof  understood that  the  sponsor wanted  to                                                                    
revert to the  exact language from the  2015 statute, rather                                                                    
than rewriting  the language to  expand the  limitations for                                                                    
Representative  Claman  responded  that the  bill  had  been                                                                    
initially  introduced  to  address  the  grandfather  clause                                                                    
issue, which had become convoluted,  but had been amended in                                                                    
the house  to reset  back to prior  statute. He  shared that                                                                    
the issue  raised by Representative  von Imhof had  not been                                                                    
discussed by the house.                                                                                                         
9:39:18 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Olson  queried whether the sponsor  would support an                                                                    
amendment  that  would allow  for  courses  the exceeded  12                                                                    
Representative Claman responded no.                                                                                             
Senator  Olson referred  to Section  11.  He questioned  the                                                                    
reasoning behind repealing the grandfather clause.                                                                              
Representative Claman  stated that the bill  would change an                                                                    
unintended consequence of  HB 131 by resetting  to the prior                                                                    
statute.  He  explained  that  the  bill  would  repeal  the                                                                    
grandfather clause  because the new training  requirement in                                                                    
HB 131 would no longer apply.                                                                                                   
9:40:27 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator Micciche noted that the  current version of the bill                                                                    
had   changed  considerably   from  the   sponsors  original                                                                    
legislation.  He stated  that the  bill had  "morphed" after                                                                    
going  through the  legislative process  on the  house side,                                                                    
which had eliminated all qualification training.                                                                                
Representative  Claman said  that training  requirements had                                                                    
been  significantly  increased by  HB  131.  He shared  that                                                                    
constituents had testified to him  about the enormity of the                                                                    
testing requirements and language  barriers in the industry.                                                                    
He relayed that  through the process it  had become apparent                                                                    
that the consequences of HB 131 needed to be addressed.                                                                         
Senator  Micciche acknowledged  that the  purpose of  HB 131                                                                    
was to  address the  public safety  of Alaskans.  He thought                                                                    
that a  balance could  be struck between  the two  pieces of                                                                    
9:42:32 AM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Bishop commented  that he was happy  to hear that                                                                    
the sponsor was amiable to amending Section 6.                                                                                  
9:43:21 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon queried  the average  hours of  training                                                                    
for comparable licensing in other states.                                                                                       
Representative Claman  understood that there was  a range in                                                                    
hours and that Alaska was on  the lower end of the spectrum.                                                                    
He understood  that 250  hours training  was more  common in                                                                    
other states.                                                                                                                   
Ms.  Perman  stated that  Alaska  has  the lowest  licensing                                                                    
requirements,  12  hours,  and  that  the  next  lowest  was                                                                    
Colorado with 20  hours. She said that  nationwide there was                                                                    
an average bracket of 250 and 600 hours.                                                                                        
Co-Chair  MacKinnon  corrected  that  the  lowest  licensing                                                                    
requirement  was  in  Connecticut;  it was  zero,  and  that                                                                    
Colorado required 600 hours for licensing.                                                                                      
Representative  Claman  recalled  that when  he  trained  to                                                                    
become an  emergency medical technical  (EMT), 250  hours of                                                                    
training  was not  required  to  provide lifesaving  medical                                                                    
care.  He  believed  that  the  required  EMT  training  was                                                                    
approximately 100 hours in Alaska.  He felt that it would be                                                                    
strange to require more training  for a nail technician than                                                                    
for a person providing lifesaving medical care.                                                                                 
Co-Chair  MacKinnon reminded  the  committee  that the  bill                                                                    
pertained  to   manicurists  and   the  safety   of  Alaskan                                                                    
residents. She noted  that Alaska was second to  last on the                                                                    
list of  required training hours. She  expressed concern for                                                                    
the human trafficking issue being  raised in connection with                                                                    
the industry. She asserted that  the intention behind HB 131                                                                    
had  been  to  protect  Alaskans from  the  consequences  of                                                                    
improperly sanitized manicure  equipment, and she questioned                                                                    
the safety of lowering the  training requirements to only 12                                                                    
9:47:06 AM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Claman said  that  the  board supported  the                                                                    
legislation,  but   agreed  that   it  would   take  further                                                                    
discussions to  determine a more  effective way  to regulate                                                                    
the industry  for safety without putting  manicurists out of                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon   understood  that   HB  222   had  been                                                                    
introduced one month previous.                                                                                                  
Representative Claman replied in the affirmative.                                                                               
Co-Chair MacKinnon  asked whether the bill  had been changed                                                                    
in each committee of referral.                                                                                                  
Representative Claman did not believe so.                                                                                       
9:48:47 AM                                                                                                                    
Senator  von  Imhof understood  that  there  was a  specific                                                                    
pending issue  that needed  to be  addressed by  August 2017                                                                    
that  had to  do with  licensing requirements.  She wondered                                                                    
whether there was a way  to address that specific issue, and                                                                    
then  find a  more appropriate  balance between  12 and  250                                                                    
hours during the interim.                                                                                                       
Representative  Claman thought  the  most  effective way  to                                                                    
address the issue and protect workers was to pass HB 222.                                                                       
9:51:35 AM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.                                                                                     
ED LOPEZ, GENERAL MANAGER, REGAL  NAIL SALON & SPA, ANCHOAGE                                                                    
(via teleconference),  testified in support of  the bill. He                                                                    
relayed that  for the past  two months he had  learned about                                                                    
the  impact from  the passage  of HB  131. He  discussed the                                                                    
requirement  for  additional  training for  manicurists.  He                                                                    
opined  that the  exam required  by current  law was  poorly                                                                    
written, poorly  translated, and  did not follow  a specific                                                                    
course  of study,  which  meant  that there  was  no way  to                                                                    
prepare for the  exam. He said that most  of the specialists                                                                    
in the  industry were  Asian, and  English was  their second                                                                    
language,  which made  the  exam  discriminatory toward  the                                                                    
Asian  community in  Alaska.  He  discussed the  grandfather                                                                    
clause, which  had been missing  from the previous  bill. He                                                                    
noted that  there were  only three schools  in the  state at                                                                    
which   technicians  could   acquire   the  newly   required                                                                    
training. He  predicted that  if HB 222  did not  pass there                                                                    
would be adverse effects on businesses and families.                                                                            
9:56:14 AM                                                                                                                    
PHILIP  BROWER,  SELF,  NORTH  SLOPE  (via  teleconference),                                                                    
spoke  in  opposition  to  the bill.  He  relayed  that  his                                                                    
partner had been  a practicing nail technician  for 8 years.                                                                    
He asserted  that she had determined  through her experience                                                                    
that 250  hours of  coursework should  be required.  He said                                                                    
that  her classes  had  educated her  about  labor laws  and                                                                    
proper sanitation.                                                                                                              
10:00:23 AM                                                                                                                   
JOHNA BEECH, SELF, KENAI  (via teleconference), testified in                                                                    
support of the bill.                                                                                                            
10:01:19 AM                                                                                                                   
YEN NGUYEN, SELF,  ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified                                                                    
in support of  her bill. She relayed that  her parents owned                                                                    
a nail salon. She discussed  the hardship her family endured                                                                    
after  immigrating to  America. She  discussed her  parent's                                                                    
business, and the difficulty that  would ensue if HB 222 did                                                                    
not pass.                                                                                                                       
10:04:19 AM                                                                                                                   
LISA MORENO, SELF, ANCHORAGE  (via teleconference), spoke in                                                                    
support of the  bill. She discussed her work  on a taskforce                                                                    
that  had focused  on human  trafficking in  the state.  She                                                                    
shared that in her research  she had never discovered a case                                                                    
of human trafficking in the state  that had been linked to a                                                                    
nail  salon.  She  noted that  human  trafficking  could  be                                                                    
linked  to many  industries across  the state.  She believed                                                                    
that  it  was  bad  policy   to  use  the  threat  of  human                                                                    
trafficking as the reason to  overregulate one industry. She                                                                    
asserted  that the  current law  would result  in a  loss of                                                                    
industry jobs.                                                                                                                  
10:08:30 AM                                                                                                                   
DEBORAH  LEE HARPER,  SELF, ANCHORAGE  (via teleconference),                                                                    
testified in support  of HB 222. She  discussed the negative                                                                    
impact  of  the  additional  training  requirements  imposed                                                                    
after  the  passage   of  HB  131.  She   expounded  on  the                                                                    
logistical  and  language  barriers that  manicurists  faced                                                                    
that had been exacerbated by  HB 131. She emphasized that HB
222  would  have  an  impact  on  approximately  a  thousand                                                                    
Alaskan business  owners and  their families.  She suggested                                                                    
that  nail  technicians should  take  part  in crafting  new                                                                    
legislation  would   speak  to  appropriate   education  and                                                                    
regulation for their industry.                                                                                                  
10:10:47 AM                                                                                                                   
ROSALYN WYCHE, HAIRDRESSER,  ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),                                                                    
spoke  in opposition  to HB  222  in its  current form.  She                                                                    
believed that HB 131 had  not received proper vetting before                                                                    
passage,  and  she feared  that  HB  222 was  being  equally                                                                    
rushed through  the process. She stressed  the importance of                                                                    
proper   sanitation  and   disinfection  practices   in  the                                                                    
industry.  She  believed  that  the  state  could  offer  an                                                                    
interpreter to help with the  language barrier faced by some                                                                    
manicurists  and nail  technicians. She  understood that  HB
131  had  a  deadline  for  licensing  of  2019,  with  work                                                                    
experience counting  toward the 250 required  training hours                                                                    
providing the test was passed.                                                                                                  
10:14:55 AM                                                                                                                   
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.                                                                                     
Co-Chair MacKinnon invited Kevin  McKinley from the Board of                                                                    
Barbers and Hairdressers to offer closing thoughts.                                                                             
KEVIN  MCKINLEY, CHAIR,  BOARD  OF  BARBERS &  HAIRDRESSERS,                                                                    
ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference), relayed  that 300  hours of                                                                    
coursework  was the  national average  in  training for  the                                                                    
industry. He reiterated  that he state was at  the bottom of                                                                    
the national  average. He said  that the  average curriculum                                                                    
included:  nail   art  and  design,   manicures,  pedicures,                                                                    
acrylics,  gels, wraps,  and nail  extensions; additionally,                                                                    
the  history  of  nail care;  personal  hygiene  and  public                                                                    
health;  safety, sterilization,  and  sanitation; nail  care                                                                    
chemicals; uses and  technique applications; nailcare tools;                                                                    
manicure apparatus  uses; nail  design and  artistry; fabric                                                                    
and   sculpting   procedures,   light   cured   gels,   nail                                                                    
extensions, acrylic nail forms,  nail product knowledge, and                                                                    
bacteriology  disorders of  nails.  He  felt that  practical                                                                    
applications  of  education  were absent  from  the  current                                                                    
legislation.   He  said   that  changes   in  the   industry                                                                    
necessitated more than  12 course hours of  education in the                                                                    
field.  He offered  some possible  compromise language  that                                                                    
could be added to the  legislation. He stressed the need for                                                                    
substantial  education  course  hours. He  shared  that  the                                                                    
industry was  working at improving  testing on  the national                                                                    
level,  for  both the  issue  of  the language  barrier  and                                                                    
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether  Mr. McKinley supported the                                                                    
Mr.  McKinley responded  that he  supported the  legislation                                                                    
only in  the sense  that it would  keep people  employed. He                                                                    
added that he  did not believe the  bill represented quality                                                                    
Co-Chair  MacKinnon interjected  that a  representative from                                                                    
her  office would  contact Mr.  McKinley offline  to discuss                                                                    
the issue further.                                                                                                              
HB  222  was  HEARD  and   HELD  in  committee  for  further                                                                    
10:21:56 AM                                                                                                                   
AT EASE                                                                                                                         
10:22:52 AM                                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 103 Opposition Letter Packet 1.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB103 Letters of Opposition 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB 103 Support Letter Packet 1.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB103 Letters of Support 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB103 Sectional-SB 36 ver J to HB 103 ver U 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
SB 36
HB103 Sponsor Statement 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB103 Support Document Accreditation Council on Optometric Education 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB103 Support Document Board of the Examiners in Optometry 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB103 Support Document Medical Liability Premiums Fact Sheet 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB103 Support Document Optometrist's Education 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB103 Support Document Optometrists Practicing in AK 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB103 Support Document Regulation Flow Chart 5.04.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB 222 Opposition Letter Packet 1.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 222
HB 222 Support Letter Packet 1.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 222
HB222 Additional Document - Enrolled HB 131 5.3.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 131
HB 222
HB222 Additional Document Ltr to J. Maiquis and C. Spencer 5.3.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 222
HB222 Additional Documents Letter to Manicurists 5.3.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 222
HB222 Sponsor Statement 5.3.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 222
HB222 Supporting Document Bev Harper 5.3.17.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 222
HB 222 Support Letter Packet 2.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 222
HB 222 Support Letter Packet 3.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 222
HB 103 Support Letter Packet 2.PDF SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB 103 Opposition Letter Packet 2.PDF SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB 103 Opposition Fuller.Stan 2017.05.10.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB 103 Opposition Letter Ford.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB 103 Support Letter Peterson.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103
HB 103 Opposition Letter Zumbro.pdf SFIN 5/10/2017 9:00:00 AM
HB 103