Legislature(1993 - 1994)
1994-02-28 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf1994-02-28 Senate Journal Page 2999 HB 160 HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S "An Act relating to the time for filing certain civil actions based on a defect in an improvement to real property; and providing for an effective date" which had been returned to the Rules Committee (page 2462) was read the third time. Senator Taylor moved that HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading with all pending amendments and held to the March 2 calendar. Senator Duncan objected. Senator Taylor moved and asked unanimous consent that his motion be withdrawn. Senator Adams called the Senate, then withdrew his call. There being no further objections, Senator Taylor's motion was withdrawn. Senator Little moved and asked unanimous consent that HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 5. Senator Leman objected. The question being: "Shall HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading for a specific amendment?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 160 am S Return to Second for Specific Amendment YEAS: 13 NAYS: 5 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 2 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Halford, Jacko, Kerttula, Little, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Salo, Taylor Nays: Frank, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Sharp 1994-02-28 Senate Journal Page 3000 HB 160 Absent: Lincoln, Zharoff and so, the bill was returned to second reading. Senators Little, Kerttula offered Amendment No. 5 : Page 3, line 26: After "action" Delete "accruing" Insert "based on a defect that occurs in design, planning, supervision, construction, or observation of construction of an improvement to real property" Senator Little moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 5. Senator Leman objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 5 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 160 am S Second Reading Amendment No. 5 YEAS: 11 NAYS: 7 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 2 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Halford, Jacko, Kerttula, Little, Rieger, Salo, Taylor Nays: Frank, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Sharp Absent: Lincoln, Zharoff and so, Amendment No. 5 was adopted. HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S was automatically in third reading. Senator Little moved that HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 6. Senator Leman objected. The question being: "Shall HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment?" The roll was taken with the following result: 1994-02-28 Senate Journal Page 3001 HB 160 HB 160 am S Return to Second for Specific Amendment YEAS: 11 NAYS: 7 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 2 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Halford, Jacko, Kerttula, Little, Pearce, Phillips, Taylor Nays: Frank, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Rieger, Salo, Sharp Absent: Lincoln, Zharoff Halford changed from "Nay" to "Yea". and so, the bill was returned to second reading. Senators Little, Kerttula offered Amendment No. 6 : Page 3, line 18: Delete "gross" Senator Little moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 6. Objections were heard. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 6 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 160 am S Second Reading Amendment No. 6 YEAS: 6 NAYS: 12 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 2 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Little, Taylor Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Kerttula, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Salo, Sharp Absent: Lincoln, Zharoff Kerttula changed from "Yea" to "Nay". and so, Amendment No. 6 failed. HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S was automatically in third reading. 1994-02-28 Senate Journal Page 3002 HB 160 Senator Little moved that HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 7. Senator Kelly objected. The question being: "Shall HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 160 am S Return to Second for Specific Amendment YEAS: 13 NAYS: 5 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 2 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Kerttula, Little, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Taylor Nays: Frank, Leman, Miller, Salo, Sharp Absent: Lincoln, Zharoff and so, the bill was returned to second reading. Senators Little, Kerttula offered Amendment No. 7 : Page 3, line 22: Insert a new paragraph to read: "(4) to public works projects funded by state or local governments" Senator Little moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 7. Senator Rieger objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 7 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 160 am S Second Reading Amendment No. 7 YEAS: 7 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 2 1994-02-28 Senate Journal Page 3003 HB 160 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Little, Taylor Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Salo, Sharp Absent: Lincoln, Zharoff and so, Amendment No. 7 failed. HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S was automatically in third reading. Senator Taylor moved that HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 8. Senator Duncan objected. Senator Taylor moved and asked unanimous consent that his motion be withdrawn. Without objection, it was so ordered. Senator Leman moved that HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading for the purpose of rescinding action in adopting Amendment No. 1 (1993 Senate Journal, page 2288). Senator Adams objected. Senator Adams called the Senate, then withdrew his call. The question being: "Shall HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S be returned to second reading for the purpose of rescinding action in adopting Amendment No. 1?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 160 am S Return to Second to Rescind Previous Action YEAS: 9 NAYS: 9 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 2 Yeas: Frank, Kelly, Kerttula, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Halford, Jacko, Little, Salo, Taylor Absent: Lincoln, Zharoff 1994-02-28 Senate Journal Page 3004 HB 160 and so, the motion failed. The question being: "Shall HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S "An Act relating to the time for filing certain civil actions based on a defect in an improvement to real property; and providing for an effective date" pass the Senate?" The roll was taken with the following result: HB 160 am S Third Reading - Final Passage Effective Date YEAS: 10 NAYS: 7 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 3 Yeas: Frank, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Salo, Sharp Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Little, Taylor Absent: Jacko, Lincoln, Zharoff and so, HOUSE BILL NO. 160 am S failed to pass the Senate. Senator Miller gave notice of reconsideration.