Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/20/2006 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB304 | |
| SB306 | |
| SB216 | |
| SB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 304 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 20, 2006
8:48 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 8:48:17 AM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Carl Moses
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Bunde; Representative Coghill; Greg Winegar,
Director, Division of Investments, Department of Commerce;
Rynnieva Moss, Staff, Representative Coghill; Wayne
Stevens, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce; Tom Nelson,
Director, Division of Employment Securities, Department of
Labor; Josh Tempel, Staff, Senator Charlie Huggins; Randy
Ruaro, Legislative Liaison, Department of Law.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Commissioner Merkes, Human Rights Commission; Steve Koteff,
Human Rights Commission.
SUMMARY
HB 304 "An Act relating to the commercial fishing loan
program; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB304 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with a
new zero fiscal note (CCED) and individual
recommendations.
SB 306 "An Act requiring an employing unit with a change
in ownership, management, or control or similar
change to notify the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development of the change; relating to
the unemployment contribution rate of an employing
unit; defining 'business' for purposes of statutes
setting unemployment contribution rates;
establishing the crime of obtaining an
unemployment rate by deception; and providing for
an effective date."
SB306 was Reported Out of Committee with one
previously published zero fiscal note (LWF) and
Individual Recommendations.
SB 216 "An Act relating to bail."
HCS CS SB216 (FIN) was Reported Out of Committee
with two fiscal notes: #1, zero, (COR); #2,
indeterminate,(ADM)and individual recommendations.
SB 132(efd fld)
"An Act relating to complaints filed with,
investigations, hearings, and orders of, and the
interest rate on awards of the State Commission
for Human Rights; and making conforming
amendments."
CSSB132 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with
two previously published zero fiscal notes (#3,
OOG; #4, LAW) and No Recommendation.
HOUSE BILL NO. 304
"An Act relating to the commercial fishing loan program; and
providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR introduced the bill.
He explained the history of the bill, regarding the State
loaning to the fisheries. He discussed his initial desire
years ago to disassemble the loan program, and how it
eventually educated him on how the program helped the
fishers of Alaska. He noted that fishers could be competing
in the same waters, while their loans were being provided at
different levels of service. He also noted that permitting
in Alaska was designed to keep fishing in Alaska. He
concluded that the fishing loan program has served a good
purpose.
Representative Coghill went on to propose, however, that the
purpose of the program should be as a safety net, used only
as a "last resort". Although he commended the current
operation, he commented that the purpose of the bill was to
set guidelines, for example requiring that applicants also
apply at other lending institutions, including the
commercial fishing agricultural loan bank.
8:52:24 AM
Representative Coghill directed the Committee to the
requirements outlined on page 2 of the bill, since SEFAB is
not federally chartered, but is the only other lending
institution statutorily able to make loans on permits. The
bill is intended to encourage fishers, if viable at other
lending institutions, to make their loan privately. He also
referred to Section 2, which changes the limit of a loan as
a percentage of collateral from 90% to 80%.
8:53:51 AM
Section 3 limits loans: up to $35,000 of federal tax
obligations, an allowance based on the upward cpi; community
quota shares may not exceed $2 million for each community
eligible under federal statute; the amount of an aggregate
loan is limited to $400,000. The Sponsor noted he began
with a limit of $300,000, but adjusted to match portfolio
limits.
8:54:29 AM
Representative Coghill referred to a change in the lending
rate, on Page 5, line 1. He explained that prime plus two
percent was the calculation used. He expressed support of
an amendment that clarifies this calculation. He concluded
that the bill made the loan program more streamlined, but
still effective in helping Alaskan fishers. He suggested
that it also introduced "reality" for fishers in servicing
their debt. He finally noted services available that are
not given by other institutions: 1) (lower) application fee
2) refinancing fees waived 3) deferred interest rate
subsidy. These are benefits and flexibilities unique to this
program. The Sponsor stated that fishers in Alaska need the
system, but proposed it should serve as a safety net.
8:56:56 AM
Representative Holm referred to line 4 of Page 5, and the
change to 80 percent of value of collateral. He asked why
this change was made. Representative Coghill stated that
this brought the percentages in line with other lending
institutions.
Representative Coghill conceded that while this was an
unfamiliar topic for the interior, it came from a desire to
keep the government from competing with the open market in
providing loan service to Alaskan fishers.
Representative Chenault asked for the Department to address
the fiscal note.
8:59:35 AM
GREG WINEGAR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INVESTMENTS, DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE, testified regarding the bill. He noted that
his division had worked with the Sponsor for quite some time
to make program changes that would not harm the fund itself.
He noted that thousands of Alaskans benefited from this
fund, and expressed appreciation for the Sponsor's
willingness to work with Department concerns. He noted that
the issue had been worked on since the 1970's, in an effort
to ensure that Alaskans could participate in fisheries.
They have helped over 6,000 harvesters. He stated that the
program has been successful, ultimately bringing monies into
the General Fund. He urged caution in making changes to the
program. He expressed that they believe that the bill was
able to accomplish changes effectively.
9:01:24 AM
Mr. Winegar referred to the fiscal note, and pointed out
that by reducing the amount of refinancing from $300 to $200
thousand, it would result in one fewer loan per year. Also
by reducing the limits on loans from $600 thousand to $400
thousand, it would potentially reduce the number of loans by
one loan per year. The fiscal note reflects the reduced
interest income over a six-year period.
9:02:11 AM
Representative Chenault asked about the delinquency rate of
9.6 percent, and whether this was normal for the market.
Mr. Winegar commented that the rate indicated was actually
higher than the current rate of 4.9 percent. The rate
varies over the years, depending on how fisheries succeed,
and 9.6 percent is an average over years.
9:02:54 AM
Representative Chenault referred to the current $400
thousand limit on outstanding loan balances. Mr. Winegar
noted that this referred to the combination of various
loans, as fisheries can apply for different kinds of loans
on different sections of statute. Responding to a follow-
up, Mr. Winegar confirmed that this number was previously
$630 thousand, and currently was at $930 thousand due to
recent legislation referring to product quality for tenders.
He noted that they had never had anyone borrow up to that
limit; while one borrower currently owed $400 thousand, the
majority of the portfolio is well under the limits.
9:04:23 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that in the fiscal note, the amount
would be lowered from $630 to $335 thousand, as opposed to
$400 thousand in the bill. Mr. Winegar confirmed that this
figure needed to be updated. It was discovered that a new
fiscal note reflects the correct amount.
9:04:58 AM
Representative Holm asked if it was expected that the number
of delinquencies or write offs would change commensurate
with legislative changes. Mr. Winegar noted that he did not
expect changes; the statute would reduce to 80 from 90
percent the loan to value ratio, something that by policy
was already occurring, which was more typical for other
lending institutions.
Responding to a follow up by Representative Holm, Mr.
Winegar noted that the default rate was at one percent, with
a delinquency rate of 4.9 percent.
9:06:23 AM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, 24-
LS0523\S. He pointed out a typographical error in the
amendment, from "point" to "points" on line 3. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony on the bill.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained the
Amendment. She noted that the current loan program used
prime rate plus, and that the provision was amended to 10.5
percent in House Resources Committee. These percentage
rates reflect a difference in philosophy in terms of
percentage rate restrictions. She pointed out the concern
that, when the 10.5 percent cap was placed into statute, the
loaning agency did not have the ability to refinance. There
is also concern over the lack of a cap on the interest rates
used to make bonds, which could hypothetically exceed the
interest rate on the loan. This provision gives the ability
to adjust the interest rates if necessary.
9:09:01 AM
Responding to a question by Representative Chenault, Ms.
Moss noted that prime rate was currently 7.75, and their
rate was 9.5. She explained that rates are determined on a
quarterly basis.
9:09:33 AM
Representative Kerttula noted the delinquency and default
rates and asked what raising the interest rate might do to
the amount of defaults. Mr. Winegar noted that this simply
added a 10.5 percent cap. Representative Kerttula asked
what the result was for fishers that exceeded that cap. Mr.
Winegar noted that their expense would be higher, and
mentioned a program for repayment.
9:10:51 AM
Representative Kerttula observed that the program was
currently successful, bringing in money for the state with
low delinquency rates.
9:11:20 AM
Ms. Moss pointed out that this bill would not affect the
current portfolio, and only new loans.
Responding to a question by Representative Foster, Mr.
Winegar confirmed that the loan program was only for those
who have been Alaska residents for at least two years.
Co-Chair Meyer REMOVED his OBJECTION.
Representative Kerttula OBJECTED to Amendment #1. She
expressed her belief that there was no reason for a change
in the program.
9:12:49 AM
Ms. Moss explained that part of the intent of the bill was
responding to a fairness issue, since many fishers were able
to go to private lending institutions. She pointed out that
when the economy changed and interest rates rose, all
fishers would be affected. She proposed that since the
program contained subsidies, it would provide a bigger
advantage with limited interest rates.
Representative Kerttula stressed that the program was to
help those who were not able to apply to lending
institutions. She stated that since the program was doing
well, there was no need to change it.
Ms. Moss expressed on behalf of the Sponsor that caution
should be exercised for these borrowers in terms of their
overall indebtedness. She noted that currently a fisher
could apply for up to $930 thousand, and that the bill was
an attempt to limit the amount that fishers could go into
debt.
A ROLL CALL VOTE was taken on the Amendment #1:
In Favor: Kelly; Foster; Holm; Chenault; Meyer
Opposed: Kertulla; Moses
Amendment #1 was ADOPTED on a Vote of 5 to 2.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HB 304 out of
Committee as Amended with individual recommendations and one
new, zero fiscal notes (CCED). There being NO OBJECTIONS,
it was so ordered.
CSHB304 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with a new zero
fiscal note (CCED) and individual recommendations.
SENATE BILL NO. 306
"An Act requiring an employing unit with a change in
ownership, management, or control or similar change to
notify the Department of Labor and Workforce Development of
the change; relating to the unemployment contribution rate
of an employing unit; defining 'business' for purposes of
statutes setting unemployment contribution rates;
establishing the crime of obtaining an unemployment rate by
deception; and providing for an effective date."
SENATOR BUNDE, SPONSOR, spoke to the bill. He explained
that the bill provided deterrents to unemployment tax
avoidance. He stated that some businesses tried to avoid
paying unemployment tax by acquiring a business with a lower
rating, and using that as a basis for their obligation. He
noted that this costs the system and other businesses.
Representative Bunde stated that the bill requires employers
to notify the Department of Labor of a business change or
acquisition, implements standards addressing transfers and
assignment of rates, and establishes the crime of obtaining
an unemployment rating by deception and sets penalties for
that crime. He proposed that the bill maintains the
integrity of the unemployment system, and prevents the
increase of rates through under-funding, as well as
promoting meaningful penalties for tax avoidance.
9:18:18 AM
Co-Chair Meyer opened the floor to public testimony.
WAYNE STEVENS, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE testified in
strong support of the bill. He pointed out that SB306
addresses the issues of State Unemployment Tax dumping. The
federal legislation established a nationwide minimum
standard for curbing certain unemployment insurance tax
avoidance activities by employers. He noted that if states
do not adopt similar language as contained in the federal
legislation, the state and businesses in those states stand
to lose significant exemptions currently available to
businesses.
Mr. Stevens went on to state that failure to pass the bill
would result in the de-certification of the Alaska
Unemployment Insurance (UI) program and employers in the
state would lose their federal offset credit of 5.4%,
resulting in $103.9 million in additional taxes to
employers. The state would lose $30.8 million for
administrative and operational funding for UI programs. He
concluded that the businesses community believes passage of
this legislation is imperative.
TOM NELSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITIES,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR testified regarding the bill. He noted
that they currently lacked the penalties to prevent those
tax avoidance behaviors that are already being tracked. The
bill would provide those needed penalties.
9:22:14 AM
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony on the bill.
Representative Foster MOVED to Report SB 306 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and one previously
published zero fiscal note (LWF). There being NO
OBJECTIONS, it was so ordered.
SB306 was Reported Out of Committee with one previously
published zero fiscal note (LWF) and Individual
Recommendations.
SENATE BILL NO. 216
"An Act relating to bail."
Representative Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 24-
LS1300\S, Luckhaupt, 4/19/06. There being NO OBJECTIONS,
the Committee Substitute was ADOPTED.
9:24:17 AM
JOSH TEMPEL, STAFF, SENATOR HUGGINS spoke to the bill. He
gave serious examples of prisoners who had been placed on
temporary release and either did not return or committed
other crimes. He discussed the changes in the Committee
Substitute: making exceptions for those with misdemeanors,
class B or C felonies, family death, birth of a child,
medical or dental treatments.
9:26:59 AM
Co-Chair Meyer expressed his gratitude for Mr. Tempel's
active service in the Marines.
Representative Stoltze stated that this does not impact
the general premise of a judge setting bail, only limits
temporary bail release restrictions. He noted that if a
prisoner appeared trustworthy, a judge might use their
discretion in setting temporary releases. He proposed that
the bill met the mandates for compassion, and pointed out
that judges may sometimes be unaware of the specific
circumstances for a particular case. He thanked the House
Judiciary Committee for adding exceptions. He confirmed
that he was sponsoring a House companion bill.
9:29:13 AM
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CS SB216 (FIN)
out of Committee with two previously published fiscal notes:
#1, zero, COR; #2 indeterminate, ADM. There being NO
OBJECTIONS, it was so ordered.
HCS CS SB216 (FIN) was Reported Out of Committee with two
fiscal notes: #1, zero, (COR); #2, indeterminate, (ADM) and
individual recommendations.
SENATE BILL NO. 132
"An Act relating to complaints filed with, investigations,
hearings, and orders of, and the interest rate on awards of
the State Commission for Human Rights; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 24-
GS1110\Y, Kane, 4/17/06.
Representative Kertulla OBJECTED to allow time to review
upcoming amendments. Following brief discussion, it was
determined that amendments could be addressed subsequently,
and she REMOVED HER OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTIONS, the Committee Substitute was
ADOPTED.
RANDY RUARO, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
testified regarding the Y Version of the bill. He explained
that this version maintained changes made the House
Judiciary Committee, with the exception of two amendments
which had been made by Representative Gara: 1) to place a
statute of limitations for filing claims with the Commission
into statute and extend the limit from 180 days to a year
and 2) to allow for an award of full attorney's fees in
court cases where a plaintiff prevailed on a claim of
discrimination. These two amendments were dropped from the
bill. One of the more important changes was to give the
Executive Director of the Commission the ability to decide
when to go forward with a case. He explained that
currently, the Commission was required to proceed on all
cases with substantial evidence of discrimination. The
bill allows the Director to look at an employer's defenses
and decide whether or not to proceed. The passage of the Y
version would also zero out the fiscal note, since the two
positions necessitated by the amendments were no longer
necessary. He pointed out that the Committee would need to
adopt Fiscal Note #3, a previously published zero fiscal
note.
9:34:57 AM
Representative Kerttula clarified that the Judiciary
Committee version originally contained the statute of
limitations extension and allowed for attorney's fees.
9:35:15 AM
Representative Stoltze opened the floor to public
testimony.
COMMISSIONER MERKES, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, testified via
teleconference. She commented on the amendments which had
been deleted. She stated that the Commission believed the
365 statute of limitations had been too long a period, and
that 180 days was sufficient. She also noted that they
would like to keep this out of statute and in regulations.
Regarding the awarding of attorney's fees, she stated that
the Commission did not believe that this bill was the proper
vehicle to carry this provision.
9:37:32 AM
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony.
Representative Kerttula MOVED Amendment #1, 24-GS1110\Y.2,
Kane, 4/19/06. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Kertulla explained that the Amendment would
allow one year within which a plaintiff could file a
complaint, as opposed to 180 days currently in regulation.
This was the amendment originally added in the House
Judiciary Committee and then dropped in the current
Committee Substitute. She conceded that this might result
in new cases for the Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Ruaro pointed out opposition to the amendment. He
stated that the Commission has handled the statute of
limitations for 43 years, and would like to maintain that
control. 32 out of 46 states with a Human Rights Commission
utilize the 180-day standard. Also, he stressed that the
public had not indicated by testimony that this time was too
short. Most cases are against employers, many of them small
businesses, and 70 percent of the cases were dismissed for
lack of evidence, after having incurred time and expense for
these employers to defend themselves. He noted that more
employers would then have to go through this process and
expense. He added that the State Chamber opposes the
amendment.
Representative Joule asked if by regulation the Commission
can currently choose to hear a case that is past the statue
of limitations. Mr. Ruaro responded that the Commission has
statutory authority to set the time period for filing a
claim. The time limit has been set at 180 days, meaning
that they could not arbitrarily hear a case that was past
this time period. By putting the limitation into statute,
as opposed to regulations, the Commission could no longer
change the limitation except through the legislative
process.
9:42:50 AM
Representative Joule asked whether the caseload prevents
hearing of current cases. Mr. Ruaro noted that there was
some backlog, but not inordinate.
Commissioner Merkes stated that the backlog was extensive,
at nearly 100 cases, and that these take up to eight months
to process.
Representative Joule asked about the reason for the backlog.
Commissioner Merkes noted that by the time the backlog was
caught up, much of the information was outdated. She noted
that in the new budget two additional staff positions were
requested. She pointed out that with the 365 days limit,
intake cases would be increased by approximately 125 cases.
STEVE KOTEFF, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, testified via
teleconference. Responding to a follow up question by
Representative Joule, Mr. Koteff stated that the Commission
reviewed cases in the order in which they were filed. He
also noted that at times cases might be taken out of order,
if violence or an egregious nature warranted it.
9:45:58 AM
Representative Joule observed that if the amendment was put
in place, the waiting list would increase. Mr. Koteff
confirmed that this would increase the backlog of cases. He
pointed out the fiscal note that included more personnel to
handle the backlog were the amendment adopted.
9:46:45 AM
Representative Kerttula maintained that the bill gave a
basis to dismiss cases more expediently, based upon the
evidence available. She proposed that this would help to
clean up a backlog and offset any waiting list.
Mr. Koteff commented that the discretion of the bill leaned
more toward cases with substantial evidence. He indicated
that presently the law read that a complainant had an
absolute right to a hearing. The Commission would then
decide whether it was appropriate to go forward. He
observed that it would not change the backlog of cases
waiting to be investigated. He noted that it would be
arbitrary for the staff to dismiss cases prior to
investigation.
9:48:51 AM
Representative Kerttula asked if there was a regulatory
ability to go immediately to the Director if evidence was
not available from the onset. Mr. Koteff noted that there
was a screening process, but not a regulatory discretion to
which she referred. Once a complaint is filed, the
Commission has a mediation program to handle cases more
quickly. As for evaluation of evidence, statute mandates
that every case be investigated thoroughly. The standard of
substantial evidence was not so high as to make
determination difficult. Some cases are resolved more
easily without as much evidence. He explained that
sometimes discrimination is not immediately apparent.
9:51:42 AM
Representative Kerttula also asked how many cases were
turned down after the 180-day limitation, and whether any
were pre-screened. Mr. Koteff did not have these figures.
He stated that the Commission established a regulation for
the time for filing of 180 days. The time for filing has
always been in regulation but not always the same time; it
was previously 300 days, changed due to resources available.
It was believed that the 180 days were adequate. Although
he conceded that perhaps some cases had not been filed, he
stated that it was difficult to quantify the number of cases
that were not investigated past the time limit. He added
that Alaskans could be referred to the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) whose limit was 300
days to file. This occurred when employers employ 15 people
or more.
Responding to a follow up by Representative Kerttula, Mr.
Koteff conceded that there were valid cases that had
exceeded the 180 time limit, and stated that in those cases
they were usually referred to the EEOC. Since those cases
were presented just through recitation of facts by a
potential complainant, they could not evaluate evidence
without benefit of a full investigation.
9:55:13 AM
Representative Kerttula observed that the main problem was
adequate staffing to handle the number of cases, and not the
length of the timeline. She proposed that 180 days was too
short a timeline.
9:55:53 AM
Representative Joule concurred that the resources of
personnel seemed to be the main issue of operating the
Commission. But he proposed that expanding the time would
not solve this issue. He maintained that unless the
resources were granted, changing the timeline might be
counterproductive.
Representative Kerttula WITHRDREW Amendment #1.
9:57:17 AM
Representative Kerttula MOVED Amendment #2. Representative
Kelly OBJECTED.
Representative Kerttula explained the amendment. She
proposed that since the Commission might not be able to
quickly investigate cases, a complainant could approach a
private attorney with the case, and if the case proved
successful, they could recoup the attorney's fees. She
added that there would also be a denial if the case was
proven frivolous, causing the complainant to be liable for
attorney's fees. She noted that the Judiciary Committee had
worked on this approach, and suggested that the Committee
ought to defer to their work.
9:59:01 AM
Mr. Ruaro stated that the Commission opposed Amendment #2.
He pointed out that no one from the public had come forward
to request the Amendment. He also proposed that if the
amendment were passed, employers would receive demand
letters from plaintiff's attorneys, threatening them with
the payment of legal fees unless they made amends.
10:00:16 AM
Representative Kerttula maintained that such threatening
behavior was not tolerated by the Bar Association, and noted
that it was unethical. She also noted that lawyers often
did not take these kinds of cases, since they were difficult
and represented small fees. She expressed her belief that
not to prosecute these kinds of cases was not good for
society. She proposed that this was one method of ensuring
that people with these complaints received justice. She
expressed openness to working with the industry and the
Department of Law to streamline the amendment and make it
more successful on the Floor.
10:02:26 AM
Representative Stoltze referred to his history as a
legislator, and frustrations he experienced in advocating
for small businesses in his district when dealing with this
kind of process. He suggested that there were protections
in our society for individuals, and that businesses also
needed protections. He proposed that there were two sides
to the issue.
10:04:56 AM
Representative Joule discussed his experience as being
discriminated against for height in trying to become a State
Trooper. He stated that at the time, he was unaware of
avenues through which he could pursue a claim of
discrimination.
10:05:40 AM
Representative Kerttula acknowledged that small businesses
had a difficult time dealing with these issues and committed
to advocating for them as well.
Mr. Ruaro noted that the cost of discrimination claims were
not typically covered by the insurance of small businesses,
and that attorney fees would come from their pocket.
A ROLL CALL VOTE was taken on Amendment #2.
In Favor: Kertulla; Joule
Opposed: Stoltze; Foster; Holm; Kelly; Chenault
Amendment #2 FAILED on a vote of 5 to 2.
Representative Chenault pointed out the two zero fiscal
notes, previously prepared prior to the amendments, from the
Office of the Governor, Commissions and the Department of
Law.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT SB 132 out of
Committee with two zero fiscal notes (#3, OOG; #4 LAW) and
individual recommendations. There being NO OBJECTIONS it was
so ordered.
CSSB132 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with two
previously published zero fiscal notes (#3, OOG; #4, LAW)
and No Recommendation.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|