02/27/2006 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB409 | |
| HB416 | |
| HB389 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 409 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 416 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 389 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 2006
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 409
"An Act relating to excluding qualified real estate licensees
from workers' compensation coverage."
- MOVED CSHB 409(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 416
"An Act relating to the amount of the state business license
fee."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 389
"An Act relating to tourist accommodations permits and to
penalties for failing to comply with permitting requirements;
removing a requirement that persons operating tourist
accommodations post certain laws and regulations on the
premises; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 389 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 409
SHORT TITLE: NO WORKERS' COMP. FOR REAL EST. LICENSEE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
01/30/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/06 (H) L&C, FIN
02/27/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 416
SHORT TITLE: BUSINESS LICENSE FEE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
02/01/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/06 (H) EDT, L&C, FIN
02/13/06 (H) EDT AT 6:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/13/06 (H) Moved CSHB 416(EDT) Out of Committee
02/13/06 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
02/15/06 (H) EDT RPT(EDT) NT 3DP 2NR
02/15/06 (H) DP: LYNN, CRAWFORD, RAMRAS;
02/15/06 (H) NR: COGHILL, NEUMAN
02/27/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 389
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
01/23/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/06 (H) EDT, L&C
02/13/06 (H) EDT AT 6:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/13/06 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/13/06 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
02/15/06 (H) EDT RPT 4DP 1NR
02/15/06 (H) DP: COGHILL, LYNN, CRAWFORD, RAMRAS;
02/15/06 (H) NR: NEUMAN
02/24/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/24/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/27/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
PERRY UNDERWOOD, Director at Large
Alaska Association of Realtors
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 409.
DAVE FEEKEN, Legislative Chair
Alaska Association of Realtors
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and testified in favor
of HB 409.
PAUL LISANKIE, Director
Central Office
Division of Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during hearing on HB 419.
CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist
Alaska National Insurance
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 419, answered
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 419.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB
416.
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented opening statement for HB 389 on
behalf of Representative Coghill, sponsor.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB
389.
ACTION NARRATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, ACTING CHAIR, called the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:31:44 PM.
Representatives Lynn, LeDoux, Kott, Guttenberg, and Rokeberg
were present at the call to order. Representative Crawford
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 409-NO WORKERS' COMP. FOR REAL EST. LICENSEE
3:32:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 409, "An Act relating to excluding
qualified real estate licensees from workers' compensation
coverage."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that he is a licensed real estate
broker, therefore he has a conflict of interest. He explained
that HB 409 exempts real estate licensees from workers'
compensation. All states require companies to purchase workers'
compensation insurance for their employees. However, real
estate agents are independent contractors, and are not
considered employees. This means that the real estate licensee
does not receive a salary or benefits, but rather receives
payment for services directly related to [real estate] sales.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN went on to say that the real estate licensee
is required to sign an Independent Contractor Agreement with the
broker, and then the agent is responsible for all business
expenses, in addition to filing and paying federal income tax.
The broker does not have control over how the real estate agent
spends his or her time, as long as it remains within the
boundaries of the law. He pointed out that the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) considers real estate licensees to be independent
contractors, and said that the state should also.
Representative Lynn noted that the commissioner of the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) supports the
bill.
3:35:40 PM
PERRY UNDERWOOD, Director at Large, Alaska Association of
Realtors (AAR), expressed support for HB 409 and deferred
questions to Dave Feeken, who is also representing the AAR.
DAVE FEEKEN, Legislative Chair, Alaska Association of Realtors
(AAR), explained that the AAR has been working to resolve the
"very unclear" relationship between a real estate broker and a
licensee. The AAR has worked with [DLWD] in an attempt to clear
up this issue. He opined that it may be better to, on page 2,
line 15, replace the word "employed" with the word "contracted,"
as this better describes the relationship between licensees and
brokers. He pointed out that [Greg O'Claray, Commissioner,
DLWD] has written a letter in support of HB 409.
3:38:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that HB 409 was introduced to
reduce the premium paid for workers' compensation insurance and
asked whether this would change liability insurance rates,
especially if an independent contractor is injured on the job
due to negligence.
MR. FEEKEN answered that he is not sure about liability
insurance, but stated that independent contractor agreements
require the licensee to have general liability insurance with a
limit of [$500,000 to $1 million].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX restated her question regarding liability
insurance rates.
MR. FEEKEN said that [the legislation] does not prevent real
estate agents from purchasing liability insurance and opined
that oftentimes individual real estate agents are able to
receive a better rate than a larger company.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that [HB 409] would not have
any impact on liability insurance due to the nature of workers'
compensation insurance. He stated his understanding that
workers' compensation covers work-related injuries, while
liability insurance covers the policy holder if he/she causes
damage to another person's property.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed disagreement with this, and
opined that if a worker is an independent contractor and is
injured on the job, he/she has the right to sue the entity with
whom he/she holds the contract agreement.
3:41:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that this is the case now.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that it is incorrect, and pointed
out that if a person has workers' compensation insurance, they
cannot sue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the purpose of the
legislation is to fix this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that HB 409 does not require
the independent contractor to maintain workers' compensation
insurance and said that if a person is injured on the job, they
are not able to access their health insurance. He gave an
example of a person who is at the broker's office and develops
carbon monoxide poisoning from a heater that had not been
properly inspected and explained that the contractor would be
able to sue in this case. He said "wouldn't it be better ... if
you're going to take away the liability under workers' comp. ...
but add the liability under negligence, to require the
licensee's to now have workers' comp. insurance on themselves as
independent contractors."
3:43:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that he has worked in real estate for
many years and has never had life insurance provided.
3:44:12 PM
PAUL LISANKIE, Director, Central Office, Division of Workers'
Compensation, Department of Labor & Workforce Development,
explained that HB 409 is intended to clear up the confusion
regarding the relationship between realtors and their
associates. He said that if a person is not an employee and is
injured on the job due to negligence, they should be able to sue
because the general understanding is that realtors are
independent contractors. In regard to whether the cost for
liability insurance will increase, he stated that he does not
know.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the suggested amendment which would
replace "employed" with "working" is potentially problematic for
the department.
MR. LISANKIE replied that he does not see a problem with this.
He explained that regardless of which word is used, "qualified
real estate professionals" would not receive workers'
compensation. He added that the word "employed" is often used
as a generic term meaning that the person is working and does
not necessarily mean that the person is an employee.
3:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked whether, under current law, an
independent contractor would be able to sue for negligence if
the broker carries workers' compensation insurance on the
licensee.
MR. LISANKIE replied that the simple answer is no, although a
"creative" attorney may turn this around. He added that if a
person is found to be an employee subject to workers'
compensation, he/she cannot sue. In response to another
question, he said that this bill would allow an independent
contractor to sue if there was basis for recovery. He opined
that a person would be able to purchase insurance that does not
differentiate between work-related and non work-related
injuries.
3:51:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked for the history of workers'
compensation claims.
MR. LISANKIE replied that he does not have reliable information
on claims involving real estate agents. He stated that there
have been cases in which a real estate agent has gone before the
Workers' Compensation Board and argued whether he/she is an
independent contractor or an employee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that in the field of maritime
law, seamen can elect whether they have workers' compensation or
maritime insurance.
3:54:19 PM
CHARLIE MILLER, Lobbyist, Alaska National Insurance, in response
to an earlier question, opined that the liability insurance
rates would not increase unless they could show the loss, but
suggested that the committee look into this.
3:55:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted a personal conflict of interest,
as he is a licensed real estate broker, and opined that if there
was a negative impact from liability insurance rates, the
brokerage community would accept this compared to the current
rate it's paying for workers' compensation. He went on to
explain that larger "brokerage houses" are employing more
people, and therefore they are required to carry workers'
compensation insurance. He added that there are assistant
brokers within the brokerage house who hire assistants and are
also required to have workers' compensation insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD opined that the intent of the
legislation is to shift the cost of workers' compensation from
the brokers to the independent contractors. He said that the
brokers may not be as supportive of the legislation if they
understood that they are creating more opportunity for the
independent contractors to sue if they are injured on the job.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD then moved Conceptual Amendment 1, which
would require licensees to carry personal workers' compensation
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected. He said that independent
contractors are independent, and mandating that they have
workers' compensation insurance would be a disservice. He
expressed that he does not think this is required.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what is covered by the
independent contractor's liability insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that brokerage houses usually
have -- insurance, and liability insurance. He expressed his
belief that independent contractors should have business
liability and an "umbrella policy," but to mandate that would
defeat the purpose of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that this is a cost-shifting
measure and said that [Conceptual Amendment 1] would simply
shift the cost of workers' compensation to the broker. He
questioned the reasoning behind this.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied that when a person is injured on
the job and goes to the hospital, the first question asked is
whether the injury occurred on the job. He explained that when
the injury occurs on the job, it cannot be charged to regular
insurance, which [leads people to sue.]
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed disagreement with this view
and said an independent contractor has the right to access his
or her health insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether a licensee with no
employees is currently required to have workers' compensation
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said no.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if a licensee would be able to
purchase workers' compensation insurance if he/she wished.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied yes.
4:03:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX shared her experience of having a law firm
and said that she does not have workers' compensation insurance.
She asked if it is correct that if an accident happened while
working, a person's health insurance would not cover it and
opined that the real issue is whether another source will pay
for the [medical bills].
4:03:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that there are other groups of
[independent contractors] who are not required to have workers'
compensation insurance.
4:05:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there was further debate on
Conceptual Amendment 1. Hearing none, a roll call vote was
taken. Representatives Guttenberg and Crawford voted in favor
of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Rokeberg, Lynn,
LeDoux, and Kott voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2-4.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved Conceptual Amendment 2, as
follows:
Page 2, line 15,
Delete "employee"
Insert "working"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
4:05:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report HB 409 [as amended] out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD objected. He expressed concern that
real estate brokers will no longer have the protection of the
employer/employee relationship [which results from] workers'
compensation insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that the majority of brokers are
"pretty smart individuals" and understand the issues.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG recommended that the sponsor of the
bill have the Division of Insurance available to answer
questions when the bill is heard in the next committee of
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD removed his objection.
[There being no further objection, CSHB 409(L&C) was reported
from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.]
HB 416-BUSINESS LICENSE FEE
4:08:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 416, "An Act relating to the amount of
the state business license fee."
4:09:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
began by noting that he has maintained a business license in
state for 20 years. He pointed out that the increase in
business license fees was an attempt to cover budget deficits;
however, this increase has hurt small businesses. He opined
that $100 per year for a business license is "remarkably high."
He noted that the federal government would like to cultivate
Internet sales, and therefore does not tax them. He opined that
changing the license fee back to $25, or amending the bill to
make the fee $50, would encourage small businesses in the state.
4:11:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that a previous effort was made to
maintain a lower business license fee.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that a "fee" is intended to
cover the program operating costs; however, the current business
license fee is much higher than the actual cost of the program.
Therefore, he said, this should be considered a tax rather than
a fee. He expressed his support of decreasing the cost of a
business license.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the sponsor had considered a
maximum [business license] fee for individuals operating
multiple businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS replied that this was considered in a
previous committee hearing. He also pointed out that [the
business license fee] became a source of revenue two years ago,
prior to which the revenue was the same as it would be, were HB
416 to pass. He opined that most business owners "grimace" when
purchasing a license, adding that [the current business license
fee] inhibits many small businesses from opening.
4:14:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if a $50 fine [for operating without a
license] is sufficient.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS replied that, according to the Department
of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development, a fine has never
been collected for [operating without a license].
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there is a provision in the current
statutes which would allow the department to levy a fine.
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, replied that currently, this is a misdemeanor,
which is "more trouble than it's worth" to pursue. This
legislation would make this an infraction, which is comparable
to a traffic violation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the current statutory provision
would be deleted. He pointed out that in Section 1 of Version F
allows a fine of $50; however, if the current statute says this
is a misdemeanor, this should be changed.
4:15:47 PM
MR. POUND replied that according to the department, this is a
misdemeanor. He mentioned that he has not reviewed the current
statute.
4:16:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that HB 416 has a further
referral to the House Finance Committee, and suggested that this
be looked into prior to the next hearing.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:17 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.
4:19:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that lost revenue must be
compensated for in another area.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed. He also noted that a number of
businesses are operating without a license, and if the $50 fine
was in place, this amount of revenue would compensate for the
loss created by lowering the business license fee.
4:20:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that he was "amazed" that the
business owners who maintain a business license are "the dumb
ones"; however, the business owners who do not maintain a
license "skate" by. He expressed strong support for the bill,
although it may be "unprecedented" to "roll back" a tax.
However, he offered his belief that this should be done whenever
possible.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that, as a small business owner, he has
a conflict of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He stated that he also
maintains a state business license, and therefore has a conflict
of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to how this would impact the
individuals who recently paid $200 for a business license. She
asked if there is a refund provision in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS replied that there is not.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed the need for a transitional
period.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that it's the "luck of the draw."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he is "in the same
predicament."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS pointed out that he is also in this
predicament.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that a transitional period would be
difficult for the division to manage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised that business licenses are
given based on the calendar year rather than the fiscal year.
He opined that this would "complicate matters" more, as this
would affect multiple fiscal years. He opined that a possible
solution would be a refund to be prorated based on a December
31, 2006 effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that a credit may be given,
which may be applied to the next business license application.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that this "would be one way to
do it."
4:24:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that the transition period
needs to be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said that while an effective date was not
considered, a December 31, 2006, effective date would be
appropriate. He added that generating credits and rebates would
place an added burden on the department, which is not the intent
of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the business owners who
have paid past this date.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said that, to his knowledge, it is only
two years per license.
4:26:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG opined that this is a "tough luck
amendment." He clarified that while the business owners would
not have to pay [the higher license fee], they would not receive
a refund of the fee which was already paid.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS replied yes.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:27 p.m. to 4:29 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that the bill be held in order
to receive further information regarding the transitional
language.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated his intent to hold the bill until the
next committee hearing.
HB 389-REGULATION OF TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS
[Contains discussion of HB 360]
4:29:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 389, "An Act relating to tourist
accommodations permits and to penalties for failing to comply
with permitting requirements; removing a requirement that
persons operating tourist accommodations post certain laws and
regulations on the premises; and providing for an effective
date."
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, characterized HB 389 as "housekeeping" since
it repeals the sections of statute that are no longer used,
along with the related areas. She explained that the Department
of Environmental Conservation has jurisdiction over trailer camp
and public facility health and safety issues.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if this was the department's response
to a memo from [Representative Coghill] to all state agencies
regarding any statutes that should be repealed.
MS. LIDSTER said that it is and noted that the remaining
regulations in AS 18.35 allow the department to maintain public
health and safety.
4:33:08 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, informed the committee
that the division is responsible for regulating public
accommodations. She stated that HB 389 repeals statutory
authority that has not been utilized since the 1960s. The
division does not permit public accommodations, therefore the
statutory authority is not necessary. The division currently
does complaint investigations and has sanitation regulations in
place, which, she noted, have been in place since 1982, and are
in need of revision. This legislation, she said, is the
beginning of that process. Once the statutory authority is "up-
to-date", the division will approach setting appropriate
sanitation standards. This legislation does not eliminate the
division's ability to set these standards, and it will continue
to do this in addition to investigating complaints. Ms. Ryan
explained that the public health risks are low and the division
staff is unable to do a more thorough investigation, adding that
this is not needed. The current permit structure is not needed
to adequately regulate these facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to [HB 360] sponsored by
Representative Kevin Meyer, and asked if HB 389 is related in
any way.
MS. RYAN explained that HB 360 requires the department to
regulate small public water systems at any public accommodation.
The division does not currently permit public accommodations.
She explained that HB 389 would not change this, although HB 360
would require the division to regulate the drinking water.
MS. RYAN, in response to a question from Representative
Rokeberg, stated that HB 389 would delete the requirement for a
sanitation permit. The division would still regulate the larger
facilities for water, wastewater, and food inspections.
Currently, the division is not regulating smaller businesses
that serve less than 25 people.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how the division is aware of the
smaller businesses that serve only 25 people if they do not
issue permits.
MS. RYAN replied that the division frequently comes across
facilities that fall under the regulatory requirements but are
not, at which point the facility is notified of the requirements
to which it needs to comply and is provided information on ways
in which it can comply.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this was part of the reason
permitting was put in regulation.
MS. RYAN replied that she does not know the reason this was
originally put into statute and noted that usually a permit is
for greater oversight over a particular industry, when it is
necessary to maintain a minimum of yearly contact, including
inspections. She opined that the permit structure was put in
place because there was a need to have a sanitation standard,
and a permit in place for public accommodations.
4:38:03 PM
MS. RYAN, in response to questions from Representative
Guttenberg, explained that the threshold for non-regulation
varies depending on the area of regulation. She stated that for
drinking water, the cutoff is 25 people; for food establishments
it is 10 people; wastewater requires that a [water] system be
installed by a certified engineer. She pointed out that HB 389
only applies to the sanitation permits. In response to further
questions, she agreed that HB 389 is merely "clean-up", and the
division will still be conducting investigations and setting
sanitation standards.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the division would maintain
the authority to investigate a small bed and breakfast in
response to complaints about bugs, vermin, or brown drinking
water.
MS. RYAN replied that this is correct.
4:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT closed public testimony.
4:41:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD moved to report HB 389 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 389 was reported out of the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:41 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|