Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/07/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB237 | |
| HB230 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 247 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 7, 2016
1:52 p.m.
1:52:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:52 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Sponsor; Taneeka Hansen, Staff,
Representative Paul Seaton; Brodie Anderson, Staff,
Representative Steve Thompson; Representative Jim Colver,
Sponsor; Mike Lesmann, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities. Janey Hovenden, Director, Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
SUMMARY
HB 230 NAMING ARCTIC MAN WAY
HB 230 was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (DOT).
HB 237 INTERSTATE MEDICAL LICENSURE COMPACT
HB 237 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 237
"An Act relating to an interstate compact on medical
licensure; amending the duties of the State Medical
Board; and relating to the Department of Public
Safety's authority to conduct national criminal
history record checks of physicians."
1:53:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, SPONSOR, appreciated the
opportunity to present the bill. He relayed that the bill
would make Alaska a party to the Interstate Medical
Licensure Compact, which would expedite licensing to bring
qualified physicians to Alaska. He shared that it was
currently a 14 to 18-week licensure process. He had heard
from new doctors who were from Alaska and licensed in other
states who wanted to return to practice in Alaska. The
individuals had been waiting over six months and still had
not received their Alaskan license and were considering
jobs outside of Alaska due to the delay. He noted that the
department [Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED)] was attempting to speed up some of the
processes. He spoke to the importance of getting doctors
into Alaska on a quicker basis due to the state's need for
physicians. He cited turnover as an issue. He explained
that licensure under the compact had a higher criteria and
required fingerprinting, background checks, and other. A
state seeking to be a member of the compact had to agree to
the qualifications; the state could have additional
qualifications and under the compact a physician would
receive a provisional license until they fulfilled the
state's additional requirements. When a person received a
license under the compact they would then have the ability
to apply for work in any other states within the compact.
Individuals had to pay the full fees to the state and would
receive a license to practice very quickly in any of the
states under the compact.
1:57:00 PM
Representative Kawasaki could see the need and benefits for
the state. He asked for verification that becoming one of
the 13 states with the licensure compact should make it
easier for Alaska state examiners to qualify a person
registered in another state.
Representative Seaton replied in the affirmative. He
detailed that a person who had satisfied the compact
criteria for licensure could get a license to practice in
any of the other compact states. He furthered that Alaska's
physicians who met the criteria could also obtain licenses
more quickly in other states as well.
Representative Kawasaki pointed to the fiscal note that
appeared to be "hefty." He observed that the fund source
was receipt supported services. He believed that once the
compact was in place it would actually cost less for the
agency to administer.
Representative Seaton deferred the question to his staff.
TANEEKA HANSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, replied
that the largest portion of the fiscal note was due to the
background checks, which were a requirement of the compact.
She relayed that currently background checks and
fingerprinting were not required for Alaskan physicians.
The bill had a specific authorization for physicians
applying for an expedited license through the compact to
undergo the background checks; the bulk of the fiscal note
included the fingerprinting fee. Additional funds in the
note were related to travel and designating a person to be
in communication with the commission. She explained that
under the compact, two commissioners would come from Alaska
to participate on the Interstate Commission; they would be
current members or staff of the medical board. She added
that there would be additional travel and needs to
coordinate with the commission.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the State of Alaska would
be made aware if a physician in the compact had been
sanctioned in another state. He wondered how it would
impact licensure.
Ms. Hansen replied that there were compact provisions
listed in the bill that outlined disciplinary actions. She
detailed that if there was a disciplinary sanction taken
against any expedited license in another state, the other
states were automatically notified by the state's medical
board and the individual's state license would be suspended
until a review was conducted. Alaska's current statutes
included a provision for suspending a license upon
notification or proof of another state action upon the
license until a hearing could be held.
2:01:09 PM
Representative Guttenberg shared a story about a dentist
from New Zealand who could not obtain a license in Alaska.
He thought it appeared that an individual had to live in
another state or have a percentage of their practice in
another state before they could transfer the license. He
furthered that the individual could not have merely
obtained a license in California and transferred the
license to Alaska; the requirements for residency were
still in place. He asked how the bill related to
international compacts. He wondered if the residency issue
still played a role.
Ms. Hansen answered that there was a section that addressed
the definition of the designation of a state of principal
licensure, which was a baseline requirement for compact
eligibility. She detailed that an individual was required
to designate a compact state as their state of principal
licensure. Requirements included that the state be the
individual's primary residency, a minimum of 25 percent of
the practice of medicine occurred, and the location of the
individual's employer. She elaborated that if no state
qualified under the requirements, the state had to be
designated as a state of residence for the purpose of
federal income tax. Individuals would have to meet the
qualifications in one of the 12 compact states (13 states
if Alaska joined the compact).
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that
international doctors could not come in and receive a
license. He surmised that the individuals would be required
to have residency in another state. He asked about the time
requirement.
Ms. Hansen answered that the compact did not outline a
requirement for the length of residency. She noted that the
information may be outlined in the commission bylaws. She
did not know the current standards for an individual Alaska
license for an international physician coming into the
state. She explained that currently physicians not living
in Alaska could apply for a license in Alaska; they had to
apply for a license in each state they wanted to practice.
Representative Seaton noted that the primary reason for the
bill was to save individuals who wanted to practice in
multiple states from applying for a license separately in
each of the locations. He furthered that expedited licenses
were electronically issued. He explained that currently
getting a license in Alaska was only done on paper - it was
not as efficient as it could be. He added that the
department was trying to expedite things by the end of the
year - some renewals were done electronically. The state
was behind the curve on electronic verification and
submission of background information.
2:05:09 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the current process a
physician licensed in another state undertook to get a
license in Alaska. He asked how long the process took.
Representative Seaton replied that the current licensing
process for first-time licenses in Alaska was done on paper
and required all of the background information. The normal
timeframe was 14 to 16 weeks; however, with staff cuts the
length of time had been somewhat extended in recent years.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how much it cost to apply for and
receive a state license.
Representative Seaton answered that the charge for a state
license through the compact was whatever the state charged.
He explained that an individual did not receive a price
break by applying electronically for the expedited license.
The process provided an expedited way to obtain a license
and saved applicants from going through paperwork for each
state they wanted to practice in.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if it was common for physicians to
want to be licensed in multiple states.
Representative Seaton did not have numerical data on hand;
however, he provided an example of eye surgeons traveling
from the Pacific Northwest to do surgeries once a week in
Anchorage.
Ms. Hansen elaborated that the licensure compact had been
adopted by many rural states where physicians traveled
between small communities or those taking advantage of
telemedicine, which required the physician to be licensed
in the state they were practicing.
Representative Wilson thanked the sponsor for the bill. She
relayed that she had helped three or four physicians in the
past year with the process that had taken three or four
months. She added that a physician could have been
practicing for 30 years and they were still required to
have their original transcripts and residency - some of the
items did not exist any longer because a person had been
practicing for so long. She discussed that the Fairbanks
hospital cancer center only had one specialist in several
different areas, which meant if someone went on vacation
the hospital had to bring a physician up to fill in for
that two-week period. She believed the bill would make the
process go much quicker for individuals in states
participating in the compact.
Ms. Hansen replied that theoretically the answer was yes.
She detailed that the bylaws were currently being written
by the Interstate Commission. How long it would take for
states to be notified had not yet been seen in practice.
She furthered that if a physician had an expedited license
in one state all they needed to do was notify the
commission that they would like to be licensed in another
state. A state was directed to issue a license as soon as
it received the fees and notification. She concluded that
the process should be much faster.
Representative Wilson did not believe there would be
thousands more doctors applying for a license because it
was easier. She remarked that the fiscal note specified the
need for an additional employee [within DCCED]. She
believed that in reality after the bill was implemented the
process would be much easier. She reasoned that there would
be less paperwork.
Representative Seaton deferred the question to DCCED.
Representative Wilson wondered if the bill would require
all physicians in Alaska - Alaskan residents included - to
adhere to the fingerprinting requirement.
Representative Seaton answered in the negative. Individuals
would not be subject to the fingerprinting requirement
unless they wanted to obtain an expedited license for
another state. The bill did not change Alaska requirements
for its licenses. He furthered that if a physician in
Alaska wanted to obtain an expedited license for another
state they would have to satisfy the background check and
fingerprint requirements for the compact.
Representative Wilson shared that a doctor had participated
in the Iditarod, but had almost been unable to participate
because it took so long to get his replacement physicians
licensed. She believed the bill would make more doctors
want to come to Alaska.
2:11:32 PM
Representative Munoz believed the bill went hand-in-hand
with the Medicaid reform bill currently before the
legislature - especially as it related to telemedicine. She
thanked the sponsor for bringing the bill forward.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the primary purpose of the
compact was to expedite licenses and increase the ease of
cross-state licensure.
Ms. Hansen answered that it was primary purpose, but it
also allowed states in the compact to maintain a database.
She detailed that the exchange of information about
disciplinary actions would be up to date and easily
accessed by all states. The Federation of State Medical
Boards kept track of licenses for participating states;
therefore, Alaska was able to obtain some of the primary
documents through the coordinated database. The compact
database provided additional detail with all licensure
information, which would enable easier confirmations.
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that there was a federalized
system and each state had the power to set its standards
for any profession. He believed the bill presumed that any
state's medical license was as appropriately set as any
other. He surmised that any physician licensed in any one
of the states should be quickly able to practice in any
other state within the compact. He asked if there were any
states that had extraordinarily high standards for extended
residencies, education, or training.
Representative Seaton responded that the assumption was not
that every state had the criteria, just like Alaska did not
require a fingerprint or background check. The compact
allowed the doctors within Alaska to also qualify for the
compact if they applied and provided the additional
required criteria; at that point they could easily obtain
licenses in other states. People understood that the
compact had a uniform group of criteria, which were higher
than required in a number of states, and that anyone
satisfying the universally high criteria would be able to
get a license and practice medicine in Alaska with an
expedited license.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the bill
only applied to medical physicians and not nurses,
optometrists, ophthalmologists, or other.
Representative Seaton replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara relayed that he had not heard about any
opposition or controversy related to the bill. He noted
that the state medical board and Alaska State Hospital and
Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA) had supported the bill.
He was happy to move the bill forward.
Representative Wilson asked why the bill would require
another staff because she believed it would make things
much easier.
2:15:46 PM
Representative Seaton deferred the question to the
department.
JANEY HOVENDEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, replied that
the bill represented an additional pathway to licensure.
She continued that the bill only applied to individuals who
met the higher criteria [required by the compact]. The old
pathway would still have to remain in place because not all
physicians would qualify for the higher criteria (e.g. a
person could have no disciplinary records). The new system
would be housed with the executive administrator who would
track the licenses and handle the fingerprinting cards that
the other pathway did not have. The position [listed in the
fiscal note] was an Office Assistant I (range 10) that
would assist the executive administrator with the
specialized program. The position would handle
communication with the commission, travel arrangements, and
other.
Representative Gara believed the costs would be funded with
a fee charged to doctors for use of the service. Ms.
Hovenden answered in the affirmative. The fee would be
charged to physicians who selected to use the specific
pathway to licensure.
Representative Guttenberg noted that he had often heard
that due to the competitive nature of the field in Alaska,
other doctors were keeping doctors out. He asked how the
bill would deal with that process. He provided an example
of a highly skilled and qualified doctor in another state.
He wondered if the medical board had an approval or denial
basis. Alternatively, he wondered if the person would
receive a license because they qualified through the
compact.
Ms. Hovenden answered that if a person qualified through
the compact and had no discipline on their record there
were no additional requirements.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the bill
enacted the entirety of the charter for the compact
(beginning in Section 6 of the legislation).
Representative Seaton replied that it was his
understanding. He noted that the bylaws were currently
being worked out by the commission and would not be enacted
by the bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler understood that the fees for the license
application and fingerprinting would be borne by the
applicants. He remarked that any interstate compact
required some staff support. He asked if the fiscal note
reflected any portion of the compact's shared maintenance
and management costs.
Ms. Hansen replied that the issue would be decided more
clearly in the bylaws. The compact did authorize an
assessment on the member states; however, in conversation
with current commissioners in the compact, the indication
was that they planned to raise the needed revenue through a
licensure fee. She detailed that it would essentially be a
registration fee for doctors using the compact system. She
added that until the bylaws were written it was possible
that the cost would be an assessment on member states. She
relayed that the commission was comprised of two members
from each medical board.
2:20:52 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the department had detail on
how many physicians licensed in Alaska also had medical
licenses in other states. Ms. Hovenden replied that the
department did not track that information.
HB 237 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act designating Pipeline Road 34-ALP-3 as Arctic
Man Way."
2:21:41 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 230, Work Draft 29-LS1135\W (Bruce,
3/25/16). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
explained the changes in the Committee Substitute (CS). The
CS removed the identifying pipeline road marker number
reference and inserted the old name for the road: "Old
Isabel Camp Access Road." He detailed that Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) were amenable to the
change.
Representative Wilson asked if the road covered by the bill
was a state-owned.
Mr. Anderson deferred the question to the bill sponsor.
Representative Kawasaki asked for the history of the road
name and who Isabel was. He spoke to a recent platting
board issue in Fairbanks related to whether Terminal Road
should be renamed to Citizen's Way to reflect that the road
lead to the borough chambers area of town. He explained
that there was a historic reason why the name had not been
changed.
Mr. Anderson deferred to DOT or the bill sponsor. He
relayed that the name change had been requested by property
owners to use the pipeline road marker reference rather
than its old name. He believed the property owners had
requested a better designating name.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM COLVER, SPONSOR, spoke to the bill. He
relayed that on the pipeline drawings and in the original
version of the bill, the access route to what once was the
Isabel Pass camp was designated 34-ALP-3 (a design
designation included on a drawing). He relayed that the
road ran across general state land. He detailed that the
Arctic Man held an event down the road. He explained that
in the area that had been called Isabel Pass there was a
pad, which once contained trailers and buildings the
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company had used to build the
pipeline. The site was currently the location of one of the
largest events in Alaska; attendees at the Arctic Man event
were estimated at 13,000 in 2015 and 15,000 in the current
year. He elaborated that the race included a combination of
skiing and snow machines where speeds reached up to 80
miles per hour. He noted that the governor had participated
as a forerunner on the race in 2014.
Representative Colver explained that the reason for the
proposal to change the name was mostly to commemorate that
it was the event location. He elaborated that there was not
really any signage indicating the location; part of the
purpose was to point to the location of the event. He
believed the name change was appropriate due to the
popularity of the event. The name in the bill had been
worked out with Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; the
company had wanted the Old Isabel Camp Access Road included
in the bill. He relayed that Arctic Man had agreed to cover
the cost of the sign and had committed to pay $800 to
$1,000 for installation; he did not expect DOT to do the
work. The department had initially included a fiscal note
of $200, which had been zeroed out by the House
Transportation Committee; the Arctic Man Classic
organization would provide funding and resources to install
a new road sign - up to $1,000. He relayed that Mr. Howard
Thies (Arctic Man president), had testified on record that
they would replace the sign in the event it was ever
knocked down. He spoke to the unique nature of the event;
there was no other race like it in the world. He asked
members to support the legislation.
2:29:06 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether it was a state road.
She relayed that if it was not a state road, a statute was
not required. She explained that if it was not a state road
they could work with the property owner to put the sign up
- she was unsure whether the owner was the Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company or the state.
MIKE LESMANN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, relayed
that the road was not maintained by DOT. The department
believed the road was on DNR land with an easement to
Alyeska.
Representative Wilson did not believe a statutory change
was necessary. She relayed that she lived on a road that
was not owned by the state - they had to go through the
borough to change the street name. She wondered if there
was currently anything preventing Arctic Man from making
and posting a sign on its own. She explained that once it
was in statute it would become DOT's responsibility.
Mr. Lesmann replied that he did not know.
Representative Wilson reiterated that if the road name was
put in statute it would become a DOT issue. Alternatively,
if the road was on private property, they could request DNR
to install the sign, but if it came down, no one would be
responsible for putting it back up.
Co-Chair Thompson did not know what the regulations were
for putting up a sign along a state road. He explained that
the bill ensured that the state had been amenable to having
a sign put up in the state right-of-way along the
Richardson Highway.
Representative Wilson explained that road service area
commissioners could not put up a sign that falls down; the
borough would not allow it. She explained that it would be
a public road and would have to abide by those rules. She
elaborated that if the entity had permission from the
property owner it was much easier to hang the sign that
way. She was trying to simplify the situation if statute
was not needed.
2:31:57 PM
Representative Colver answered that the road was on state
property; it was not about the sign it was about the event.
He furthered that the sign had a safety implication. He
elaborated that without the road-sign people had gotten
lost in the area; ambulances responded to the area when
needed [and needed to be able to find their way]. He
explained that there had recently been an unfortunate
incident involving an avalanche. He reiterated that it was
state land and was appropriate for the state to designate
right-of-way. He reasoned that if the sign went away, the
sign went away; but the statute memorialized that Arctic
Man took place in that location. He stated that pipeline
camps came and went; likewise, Arctic Man may come and go.
He restated that it was state land and it was appropriate
to designate the road a certain name.
Representative Wilson explained that she did not have a
problem with the sign. She elaborated that her concern was
about the proper process and procedure. She detailed that
it was helpful to know if another person in the future
wanted to put a sign on a road in the area. She believed it
would be easier if the designation was not in statute. She
did not have a problem renaming the road. She wondered if
because the road did not belong to DOT that Arctic Man
could merely ask DNR for permission to post a sign. She
thought that may be easier and less costly. She noted that
the state was required to post certain kinds of signs
(which were more expensive) as opposed to a sign purchased
on the internet.
Representative Kawasaki had never known the road to be Old
Isabel Camp Access Road or anything else. He had always
just known the location as where Arctic Man was held. He
asked if the current name had historical meaning or value.
Representative Colver answered that it had been designated
as Old Isabel Camp Access Road on Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company maps. The legislation would enable a person to look
back to see that what the road had previously been named.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his concern about
historical meaning. He remarked that the current name was
historically speaking not extremely old - it was from the
pipeline era.
Representative Guttenberg did not understand the reason for
putting the name in statute. He relayed that in his former
district he had to threaten DOT that he was going to
personally put up a sign if the department failed to do so.
He stated that "in my neighborhood we put up road signs."
He continued that when the state put in a subdivision,
legislation did not name the roads or streets. He discussed
that legislation was expensive. He remarked that the name
change in the bill was a $200 issue. He would have merely
bought a sign and installed it. He elaborated that a sign
shop could make a sign that would be indistinguishable from
a state sign. He asked about the precedence the bill was
setting. He asked about Alyeska Pipeline Service Company's
position. He would understand memorializing a highway after
a group such as the Purple Heart Highway. He emphasized
that the bill would name a street in statute. He wondered
about other streets named by statute. He thought the
commissioner could have merely checked the request off and
put the sign up.
Mr. Lesmann replied that he could not answer the question.
He deferred to the Department of Law or Legislative Legal
Services.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that to change the name of a
street in Fairbanks it was necessary to go through the
entire process with the city council; it had to be
identified on maps for public safety (i.e. police, fire,
and ambulance). He explained that inside the borough the
name change had to go through a process. He explained that
current bill went through the same process - if there was
an accident and someone needed to find the location it
would show up on a map. He believed it was important to get
the information in the state's ledgers.
2:39:09 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler suspected that an Arctic Man Way sign
may be a target of opportunity. He thought it would be a
souvenir for people to capture as part of their time spent
at the Arctic Man event. He wondered about the potential
for the sign to be stolen or vandalized. He wondered who
would be responsible if so.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Mr. Thies had provided a
letter to the committee stating that the Arctic Man
organization would pay for and replace the sign if it was
vandalized or stolen.
Representative Edgmon spoke in support of the bill. He
reasoned that it was about naming a particular highway, but
more importantly it was about formally designating an event
- that was important to thousands of Alaskans - in state
statute. He added that other infrastructure items
throughout the state were enshrined in statute time and
time again. He believed it was a worthy designation. He was
ready to move on to more weighty matters before the
committee.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Saddler highlighted the zero fiscal note from
DOT.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that Alyeska
did not currently have a sign posted at the location.
Co-Chair Thompson replied that there was currently a
numbered highway marker sign posted. He relayed that his
office had spoken with Alyeska and DOT along with
Representative Colver's office. He explained that because
of various problems, Alyeska wanted the numbered marker
reference removed from the bill so its designation of the
location would not be included. All parties had agreed to
the proposed change.
Representative Wilson assumed that the numbers would remain
posted on the highway along with the new sign.
Co-Chair Thompson confirmed that the numbers would still
remain.
Vice-Chair Saddler voiced his concern that the sign could
be stolen. He hoped the Arctic Man organization would
commit to replacing the sign as often as necessary.
2:43:21 PM
Representative Pruitt referred to a letter from Mr. Thies
dated February 8, 2016 (copy on file). The letter stated
that Arctic Man would "provide funding and resources to
install a new road sign estimated by DOT to cost $800-
$1000. Please pass this legislation." He echoed Vice-Chair
Saddler's comments that the letter did not specify the
organization would pay for and reinstall a new sign that if
it was damaged or stolen. He relayed that he had looked
through statutes during the meeting and had been surprised
so many things were named.
Representative Colver would provide the committee with a
copy of Mr. Thies's testimony to the House Transportation
Committee. He relayed that Mr. Thies had testified that the
organization would replace the sign. He added that the
Arctic Man event was currently underway. He noted that Mr.
Thies had been the northern director for DOT.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Mr. Thies had been the
director of maintenance and operations for DOT.
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to REPORT HB 230 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She emphasized that the
bill would require DOT to do work on the issue. She
explained that whether or not someone had specified that
they would replace the sign, it would be another thing for
DOT. She was concerned that there were many other events
that happened. She understood that Mr. Thies would keep his
word as long as he was with the organization. She remarked
that the state was not going to sue someone over a sign.
She WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
HB 230 was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (DOT).
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the agenda for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
2:48:27 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 237 Dr. Hornberger letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 237 |