Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/30/2021 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 | |
| HB28 | |
| HB81 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 30, 2021
1:41 p.m.
1:41:45 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:41 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sara Rasmussen
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Sponsor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dale Kelley, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission.
SUMMARY
HB 28 REGISTRATION OF BOATS: EXEMPTION
CSHB 28(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note by the Department of Administration
and one previously published fiscal impact note:
FN2(DFG).
HB 81 OIL/GAS LEASE: DNR MODIFY NET PROFIT SHARE
CSHB 81(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with two previously
published fiscal impact notes: FN1(DFG) FN2(REV).
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the Co-Chair for the smooth
amendment process to the operating budget bill in the
previous day. She indicated the committee would be hearing
amendments for the two bills on the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to the registration of commercial
vessels; and providing for an effective date."
1:42:55 PM
Co-Chair Merrick relayed there were 2 amendments for HB 28.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file):
Page 2, lines 9 -10:
Delete all material and insert:
"(7) a commercial vessel that has a valid
(A) certificate of documentation issued by
the United States Coast Guard under 46
U.S.C. 12101 -12121; and
(B)license issued under AS 16.05.490 or
16.05.530;"
Page 2, lines 17 -21:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 30:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 2"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
1:43:10 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 (copy on file):
Page 2, Line 24
Following "year" insert: "for vessels that have a
certificate of documentation issued by the United
States Coast Guard under 46 U.S.C 121001
12121."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained there was a drafting error in
the original amendment which would be addressed with the
adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1. If the amendment passed
owners of documented vessels would be charged $24 every 3
years to register with the Division of Motor Vehicles and
an $8 fee per year to register with the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). Effectively, the
documented vessel owner would be double charged as the bill
stood. The conceptual amendment would exempt undocumented
vessels from the annual $8 vessel registration fee assessed
by CFEC. They would still be required to register with DMV
every 3 years and pay a fee of $24. He reiterated the
conceptual amendment simply corrected a drafting error.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment 1 as
amended.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Amendment 1 as amended was ADOPTED.
1:45:05 PM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy
on file):
Page 2, line 5, following "by":
Insert "the United States or"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter explained the amendment was to
correct an unintended consequence of SB 92 [Legislation
passed in 2018 regarding vessel registration, titles, and
derelict vessels]. Prior to SB 92 all Alaskan vessels were
registered as documented or undocumented. When SB 92 went
into effect it included all documented vessels. He relayed
SB 92 attempted to provide funding to remove derelict
vessels. However, according to the Legislative Finance
Division, no funding was spent on removing or addressing
derelict vessels. The amendment would address the burden on
owners of U.S. Coastguard documented vessels outside the
fishing industry.
Representative Carpenter reported that prior to SB 92 the
vessels were not included in state registration
requirements, as they were already federally documented.
The amendment would also remove an increased burden on the
DMV, lessen the burden on the commercial fishing industry,
and lessen the burden on law enforcement. He mentioned a
document from the administration confirming the function of
the amendment would remove the requirement of U.S.
Coastguard registered vessels from having to register with
the State of Alaska.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if Representative Carpenter wanted
the document distributed to members.
Representative Carpenter replied in the affirmative.
1:46:36 PM
AT EASE
1:51:19 PM
RECONVENNED
Co-Chair Merrick invited Representative Carpenter to review
the correspondence.
Representative Carpenter relayed the letter was from Kelly
Hanke and indicated the amendment would exclude all U.S.
Coast Guard documented vessels from having to register with
the state.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked Representative Carpenter to review
the impact and intent of the amendment.
Representative Carpenter responded the intent of the
amendment was to alleviate the owners of vessels already
registered with the U.S. Coast Guard from having to
register with the State of Alaska. If law enforcement was
investigating a derelict vessel, the U.S. Coastguard could
be contacted to assist with finding the owner of the
vessel. He did not think it was necessary to have a
duplicative registration requirement to identify a vessel
owner.
1:53:00 PM
AT EASE
1:54:23 PM
RECONVENNED
Vice-Chair Ortiz appreciated the response from
Representative Carpenter. However, he thought the intent of
the bill was to be able to identify the owner of a derelict
vessel. He was concerned with the representative's words,
"Relatively sure" was not convincing enough for him to
support the amendment.
Co-Chair Merrick invited Ms. Kelley from CFEC to comment.
DALE KELLEY, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION (via teleconference), asked for the question to
be restated.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought the amendment suggested U.S. Coast
Guard vessel registration would be enough to identify a
vessel's owner and that vessel registration with the state
was unnecessary. He wondered if a person investigating a
vessel would have easy access to the vessel information
through the U.S. Coast Guard without relying on another
source. He asked Representative Carpenter if he was
accurate.
Representative Carpenter responded, "Partially."
Ms. Kelley replied she was trying to figure out the intent
of the amendment and how it articulated with the overall
bill. She indicated CFEC was not an enforcement agency and
was unsure of the process in dealing with a derelict
vessel. She reported that for documented vessels there was
a U.S. Coast Guard documented registry online look-up
system that might provide information, but the information
was not necessarily inclusive. Originally, the bill
attempted to correct documented vessels from having to
register with DMV. They never had to until 2019. A U.S.
Coast Guard documentation was effectively a registration
and abstract of title which tracked the entire history of a
vessel. The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission required
U.S. Coast Guard documentation to license [documented]
vessels. She continued for undocumented vessels CFEC
required DMV registration and title to issue a license.
1:59:54 PM
Representative Carpenter thought Ms. Kelley had answered
the question definitively. U.S. Coast Guard registered
vessel information could be accessed online from any
computer connected to the internet. He commented there had
been discussion in the bill about avoiding double fees for
portions of the user group. Yet, the bill required a
portion of the user group to register twice. The amendment
would recognize there was already a registration process in
place for a certain class of vessel with the federal
government easily accessible online. The U.S. Coast Guard
had the needed information to be able to identify owners of
derelict vessels. He read the amendment.
Co-Chair Merrick recognized Representative Johnson.
Representative Wool gathered from the sponsor statement and
prior testimony that the bill was trying to reduce
duplicative state registration for certain vessels. By
acknowledging that CFEC had a database for commercial
fishing vessels, the vessels would not have to register
with the DMV, avoiding two registrations within the state
database. He noted the U.S. Coast Guard was part of the
federal rather than the state database. He did not think it
was unreasonable to have every vessel with a certain
description registered with the state even if it was also
registered with the U.S. Coastguard. He suggested the state
fee was only $8 per year. He spoke of the fiscal note
associated with the removal of derelict vessels. He
suspected the fiscal note would change if the amendment was
adopted.
2:03:52 PM
Representative LeBon suggested that if a person registered
a vessel with the U.S. Coast Guard, they were likely
utilizing the services of a preferred marine mortgage
underwriter. He explained that the preferred marine
underwriter searched the U.S. Coast Guard database and any
other source including state, UCC filings, and DMV filings
to investigate ownership history and clear title of a
vessel. He thought requiring a redundancy in vessel
registration was unnecessary and compared it to home owners
and mortgages.
2:05:47 PM
Representative Edgmon commented that the amendment proposal
was a sweeping change. He did not think there was enough
time or information to decide on an oversight issue. He
noted the number of supporters of the bill. The amendment
was a technical fix regarding oversight established in a
major omnibus bill, SB 92, which would exempt smaller
commercial fishing vessels from having to undergo dual
registration. The current bill was vetted in the House
Fisheries Committee and had overwhelming support from
several fishing associations. He suggested the amendment
was a meat cleaver to an issue that was being surgically
dealt with in the bill currently before the committee. He
was unaware of what the effects would be and wanted to hear
from interested parties such as the U.S. Coast Guard and
the Alaska DMV. He also wanted to know about any potential
fiscal impacts. He suggested there was a reason for a
two-tier system of vessel registration with the U.S. Coast
Guard and the State of Alaska. He would be opposing the
amendment. He encouraged the sponsor to present the idea in
a separate piece of legislation where it could be properly
vetted.
Vice-Chair Ortiz relayed that the situation Representative
LeBon described had existed for a number of years. He asked
the representative if it had been an ongoing process.
Representative LeBon replied that any bank financing a
vessel did an ownership search and a lien inquiry. A bank
would not want to find out after the fact that another bank
also had a loan against the same vessel. It would render
the second loan junior to the first. Banks tended to be
very careful with such circumstances.
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted the issue of derelict vessels
despite tracing abilities. The original bill attempted to
address the issue. Even though there had been significant
vessel information available, the issue of derelict vessels
continued to exist. The current bill helped clean up the
issue of duplicative registration.
Representative LeBon responded that he was good with it.
2:10:19 PM
Representative Johnson voted for the original bill because
it was an attempt to ensure that harbor masters could track
down owners of derelict vessels. She had received input
from her constituents who did not think it would work out
well for non-fishing vessel owners. She relayed that at the
last town hall she had participated in a woman testified
and provided a description of the process of registering a
vessel. It caused her to take another look at the issue.
She thought the amendment allowed for people who owned a
sailboat not to have to go through extensive hoops to enjoy
a boat. She was open to hearing feedback.
Representative Edgmon asked about the amendment's fiscal
ramifications. He noted there would be less money going
into the derelict vessel fund. He thought having other
state documentation provided a valid public purpose. He did
not understand the true depth of the cost of the amendment
which did not have an accompanying fiscal note. It was
difficult for him to continue to be part of the dialogue.
Representative Wool asked how many boats in Alaska were
over 32 feet long or over 5 tons. He was concerned with the
percentage of boats that would no longer have to register
with the U.S. Coast Guard. He opined there was no harm in
redundancy. He was concerned with the number of boats that
might fall into the exempt category because of the
potential revenue impact. He was not ready to support the
amendment.
2:16:07 PM
Representative Johnson thought about $20,000 was the amount
available to dispose of derelict vessels. She argued that
the amount was nominal based on the real cost associated
with disposing of a vessel. She was not seeing the fiscal
impact. She thought the amendment was straight forward.
Co-Chair Merrick invited Representative Tarr to comment.
2:17:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, SPONSOR, understood that the
point of the bill was to have a state-managed database.
Certain references to the U.S. Coast Guard were
specifically removed from the original bill. She believed
it was considered in the debate of the legislation. The
decision was made to pass a bill that would create a
state-managed database for purposes of managing derelict
vessels. Since then, it was identified that the CFEC was a
state-managed database as was the DMV registration. The
bill would clean up the redundancy within the state
entities which she supported. However, she wanted to be
certain that it did not upend the original intent of the
bill and additionally remove the ability for the fee to be
collected. She had looked at the amount collected to-date.
The fee was necessary given the cost of the derelict vessel
clean-up. The fee would help to offset costs.
CO-CHAIR MERRICK MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
Representative Carpenter looked at the index of written
testimony and counted seven organizations favoring the
bill. He suspected their support was because commercial
fishermen were referenced. It did not surprise him that
active commercial fishermen with active vessels would
support alleviating duplicate registrations. He wondered if
active commercial vessels that were not affiliated with
fishing would also like to be excluded from duplicative
registrations. He speculated that there would be
significant support. If the intent was to identify derelict
vessels, there was no need for state registration, as they
were identifiable through the U.S. Coast Guard. He offered
the amendment for the sake of parody amongst user groups.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Thompson
OPPOSED: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Merrick, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment 2 FAILED (4/6).
2:24:07 PM
AT EASE
2:24:33 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wool commented that the previous speaker
mentioned that commercial fishermen only had to register
once. He clarified commercial fishermen had to register
vessels over 32 feet and over five tons with CFEC and the
U.S. Coast Guard.
Representative Carpenter agreed. However, the undocumented
fishing vessels were being treated differently, as they
would not be required to register twice. The previous
amendment specifically talked about both fishing vessels
and non-fishing vessels that were documented. He read from
the sponsor statement. There was a subset of fishing
vessels that would be exempt. He suggested there would be
no need for them to be registered with the U.S. Coast
Guard. His point was moot, as the amendment had already
failed.
2:26:30 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to report CSHB 28 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Thompson, Wool,
Merrick, Foster
OPPOSED: Carpenter, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (8/2).
CSHB 28(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note by the
Department of Administration and one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN2(DFG).
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of natural
resources to modify a net profit share lease."
2:27:46 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy
on file):
Page 7, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 38.05. I 80 is amended by adding a
new subsection to read:
(mm) The commissioner may not grant a net
profit share modification under (j) of this
section unless the net profit share
modification is approved by the
legislature."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained that the net profit
share leasing program was not well known until the
introduction of HB 81 and the Senate companion bill. He
explained that the administration wanted more latitude to
negotiate certain items embedded into royalty contracts.
They were binding bilateral contracts that did not need to
be revisited. The proposal could be rejected summarily. The
administration's position was that by giving it the liberty
to modify a net profit share lease (NPSL), it could help
prevent field assets from being stranded. It begged the
question about the nature of a lease and the duty to
develop. He noted that previous legislators, Eric Croft and
Harry Crawford, had introduced an initiative on the topic
of the obligation to develop.
Representative Josephson continued that fundamentally, his
amendment would allow for agreements to be reached but
would not bind them by law until they were approved by the
legislature. His reason for offering the amendment had to
do with trust. He suggested that legislators wanted
reassurance that the administration would negotiate in an
arms-length way, as the state was sovereign. He was unsure
the administration was willing to negotiate in such a
manner. He noted, for example, there were reports about
press releases involving a large metallic mine Southwest of
Anchorage. It was difficult to tell where the industry's
words ended, and the state's words began. Separation was
lacking and parroting occurred giving him pause.
Representative Josephson continued that the legislature had
given the industry substantial breaks. The legislature was
looking at reforms of SB 21 [Oil and gas production tax
legislation passed in 2013] in the form of HB 247 [Tax,
credits, interest, refunds, and oil and gas legislation
that passed in 2016] and HB 111 [Legislation passed in 2017
regarding oil and gas production tax, payments, and
credits]. The legislature realized how complicated SB 21
had been. He argued that the punitive floor on gross tax
was not really a floor except in narrow circumstances. The
bill [SB 21] was favorable to the oil industry.
Representative Josephson was torn because Mr. Fitzpatrick
had presented evidence that the legislation could result in
a solution where everyone benefited, with the state
potentially benefiting in the long-run. He suggested there
was no harm in the legislature looking at the contracts for
approval. It had been done in 1996 with the North Star oil
and gas lease in HB 548. The bill was vetted and passed
within 6 weeks and gave the state the right to modify a
NPSL. He thought the legislature should do the same.
Representative Josephson noted a memo that indicated it
might be unconstitutional or inappropriate. However, there
were instances in current law where a royalty in-kind
contract was accepted. He had voted on a couple of such
contracts in the House Resources Committee then on the
House Floor. Also, there were terms in the Alaska Gasline
Inducement Act (AGIA) that required acceptance of an
agreement related to AGIA and ratification by a bill from
the House Rules Committee. There was some background for
the requirement of legislative approval.
Representative Josephson reiterated that he was unsure if
he wanted to give the administration leeway. He relayed
that the House resources Committee modified the bill so
that it would not apply to royalty modification. He had
been told that without the modification, Prudhoe Bay, where
the state had seen $13 billion of royalties since it was
developed, could have been modified without the
legislature's participation. The Senate version did not
include the same modification. He suggested that if there
was not an easy concurrence between the bodies, the bill
would go to conference committee where the legislature
could be in a position of modifying Prudhoe Bay's royalty
which he did not want to do. He thanked the committee.
2:37:12 PM
Representative Thompson was apprehensive about the
legislature having to approve any NPSL modifications. He
was concerned with a potential timeline issue if a
modification was need when the legislature was not in
session. He trusted the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to make modifications based on their history with
previous modifications. He did not want to see a well shut
down because of the legislature not meeting in a timely
manner.
Representative Carpenter relayed that the amendment stated
that profit share modifications would have to be approved
by the legislature. He thought the complexity of the issue
would take a long time to properly vet in the legislative
process. He also pointed out the need to take politics out
of the decision about whether a NPSL modification should
advance. He did not think it would contribute to setting an
example of being business friendly in the state.
Co-Chair Merrick agreed with Representative Carpenter's
comment.
2:40:10 PM
Representative Wool agreed the subject matter was
complicated. He shared Representative Josephson's concerns
about the amendments adopted in the House Resources
Committee being removed from the committee substitute. He
would be especially concerned with limiting the capital
expenditure language to NPSLs only. The state had 26
leases, 2 of which were currently in production. Most of
the leases had sat dormant for their existence - some
leases were decades long. He would not comment on his trust
level of the administration but shared some of the same
concerns as Representative Josephson. There were several
triggers that could influence production depending on the
price of oil. Producers wanted to keep their wells in
production, and he wanted to see the wells continue to
produce oil. He suggested that future administrations could
potentially negotiate new terms. The state had the ability
to renegotiate royalty rates, although it occurred
infrequently. He was concerned with the amendment's
potential question of constitutionality.
Representative Edgmon concurred with Representative Wool's
comments. He appreciated the efforts of the maker of the
amendment but could not support it.
2:43:03 PM
Representative LeBon disagreed with the notion of
politicizing the issue. He did not think the legislature
was geared to weigh in on the issue. He had confidence the
department would be motivated to negotiate the best
possible settlement for the state.
Representative Josephson did not know how it was possible
to keep politics out of the issue. He explained that when
producers were profitable, they paid a portion under a
NPSL. It was essentially a contract that was entered into
willingly by both parties. The legislature was being asked
to trust that the industry would do something. He did not
see himself as "Anti-industry." However, the most recent
promises of record had not been great. He did not have
confidence in the administration because of the lack of
separation between the two institutions. He did not think
that looking at the issue through a political lens would
color it in a detrimental way. He suggested if the
administration could make its case to the legislature, the
legislature would approve it, just like it happened in
1996. His constituents were dissatisfied with the share of
taxes and royalties the state received for its assets.
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Ortiz
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Johnson, LeBon, Thompson, Wool,
Carpenter, Merrick, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment 1 FAILED (2/8).
2:46:21 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on
file):
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "authorizing the commissioner of natural
resources to modify a net profit share"
Insert "relating to the modification of a royalty
or net profit share in an oil and gas or gas
only"
Page 7, following line 20:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"*Sec.6.AS.38.05.180 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(mm)The commissioner may grant a royalty or net
profit share modification under U) of this
section only if the Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas
Development Advisory Board recommends that the
commissioner approve the royalty or net profit
share modification.
"*Sec. 7. AS 38.06.040(a) is amended to read:
(a) The board shall
(1) in accordance with the criteria set out
in AS 38.06.070, develop a plan for the wise
development of the state's oil and gas
royalty interests; the plan of development
shall be consistent with
(A) growth of the private sector of
the economy;
(B) environmental standards required
by law: and
(C) public fiscal stability;
(2)hold public hearings on proposed sales,
exchanges, or other disposals of royalty oil
or gas to determine whether the proposals
comply with AS 38.06.070;
(3) examine proposed sales, exchanges, or
other disposal of, and recommend to the
legislature that it approve or disapprove a
proposed sale, exchange, or other disposal
of
(A) the oil or gas that is obtained by
the stale as royalty under AS
38.05.182; or
(B) the rights to receive future oil or
gas production under slate leases;
[and]
(4) recommend to the commissioner of natural
resources the conditions relating to the
sale, delivery, transportation, refining, or
processing of oil or gas that [WI-IICI IJ
the commissioner may include in the offer
and sale of oil or gas obtained by the state
as royalty under AS 38.05.182; and
(5) review a royalty or net profit share
modification under AS 38.05.180 and
recommend that the commissioner approve or
disapprove the modification."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED FOR DISCUSSION.
Representative Wool explained that the amendment required
any change to a NPSL or royalty (currently allowable under
law) be approved by the Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas
Development Advisory Board. The board currently helped to
facilitate the wise development of Alaska's oil and gas
royalty interests by providing means and procedures for
sales, exchanges, or other disposition of those interests
in ways calculated to promote private economic growth
consistent with applicable environmental standards and
public fiscal stability and in accordance with
AS.38.05.183. The amendment would add the requirement that
any change in royalty and NPSLs would have to be approved
by the board. He thought it provided an extra safeguard
layer.
Representative Josephson supported the amendment. He spoke
of the referral of royalty in-kind from the administration
to the legislature. He argued that royalty in-kind was
already politicized. He noted that the amendment would
further politicize the advisory board. He did not know
whether it would be a meaningful layer of protection.
However, he admitted that public input would be a plus.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED without comment.
Representative Carpenter MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Foster
OPPOSED: LeBon, Thompson, Carpenter, Johnson, Merrick
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment 2 FAILED (5/5).
2:51:04 PM
AT EASE
2:52:16 PM
RECONVENNED
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to report CSHB 81(RES) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED with no comment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Ortiz, Thompson, Wool, Carpenter, Edgmon,
Johnson, Foster, Merrick
OPPOSED: Josephson
The MOTION PASSED (9/1).
CSHB 81(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two previously published fiscal
impact notes: FN1(DFG) FN2(REV).
2:53:38 PM
AT EASE
2:55:10 PM
RECONVENNED
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the next meeting
scheduled on Monday, May 3, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
2:55:31 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 81 Amendment 1 Josephson.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Amendment 2 Wool.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Legal Memo Josephson 042921.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB 28 Amendment 1 Ortiz.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Amendment 2 Carpenter.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.pdf |
HFIN 4/30/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |