Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/06/1998 01:15 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 1996
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. (Bill) Williams, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL 480
"An Act relating to maintenance of state marine vessels; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 480(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 480
SHORT TITLE: MAINTENANCE OF STATE MARINE VESSELS
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/01/98 2832 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/01/98 2832 (H) TRANSPORTATION
4/06/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
4/07/98 2904 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 2DP 4NR
4/07/98 2904 (H) DP: COWDERY, WILLIAMS; NR: ELTON,
4/07/98 2904 (H) KOOKESH, SANDERS, MASEK
4/07/98 2904 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOT)
4/07/98 2904 (H) REFERRED TO RULES
WITNESS REGISTER
PETE ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Rerpesentative
Williams, sponsor of HB 480.
BOB DOLL, Captain
and General Manager
Marine Highway System
Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3959
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 480.
DOUG WARD, Project Manager
Alaska Ship and Dry Dock
P.O. Box 9470
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-7199
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 480.
TOM MOORE, First Mate
M/V LaConte
Marine Highway System
Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities
P.O. Box 9289
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5735
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 480.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 480.
JAMES PRUITT, President
Seward Ship Dry Dock
P.O. Box 944
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-5640
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 480.
MARK O'BRIEN, Chief Contracts Officer
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6990
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 480.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Masek, Cowdery,
Sanders and Kookesh. Representative, Elton arrived at 1:16 p.m.
HB 480 - MAINTENANCE OF STATE MARINE VESSELS
Number 0004
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will be addressing HB
480, "An Act relating to maintenance of state marine vessels; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS mentioned they talked about this issue last year
when they debated the Marine Highway Authority legislation and the
interport differential is part of that legislation. Chair Williams
mentioned last fall the provisions of HB 480 sunsetted from state
law and he introduced HB 480 to make sure that we have interport
provisions this year.
Number 0012
PETE ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to Representative Williams,
Alaska State Legislature read the following sponsor statement:
"AS 36.90.050 expired by sunset in August of 1997 and that expired
provision provided similar considerations to those contained in HB
480. House Bill 480, as the chairman mentioned, the provisions in
it were discussed also last year when we had the Alaska Marine
Highway Authority legislation in front of the committee. ...
Passage of HB 480 will preserve the following benefits to the
state:
"State Multi-vessel Maintenance Agreements: Prior to expiration of
AS 36.90.050, the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) negotiated
with Alaska shipyards a precedent setting multi-vessel maintenance
agreement for seven of its eight state ferries. This multi-vessel
agreement resulted in significant savings and economic benefits to
the state and Alaska's growing ship repair industry. After the
expiration of AS 36.90.050, the state will no longer be able to
negotiate future advantageous multi-vessel agreements with Alaska
shipyards.
Number 0024
"House Bill 480 Creates a Level Competitive Playing Field for
Alaska's Shipyards: House Bill 480 provides for a true and
accurate statement of interport differential costs giving Alaska
shipyards a fair competitive basis for publicly bid vessel repair
projects. House Bill 480 provides guidance for full,
understandable and repeatable calculation and disclosure of costs
which make-up the interport differential.
"Interport Differentials Explained: Interport differential refers
to costs associated with moving a vessel from point (a), the
vessels base port, to point (b), any other place a bidder is
located, and back. The interport differential is calculated by the
state and added to the non-base port shipyard's bid. House Bill
480 directs the AMHS to adopt interport regulations.
"House Bill 480 creates a level playing field between bidders for
state marine vessel maintenance and repair work. A level playing
field helps Alaska's shipyards draw new marine support contractors,
vendors and support industries to Alaska and ultimately diversify
the state's economy and bolster winter employment."
Number 0037
MR. ECKLUND indicated he was available to answer question and that
there were two amendments to be considered.
Number 0038
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked if there is a current preference
for instate contractors to do the work.
MR. ECKLUND replied for jobs that don't involve federal money,
there is a five percent bidder's preference for Alaska companies on
all types of jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked do we have the capacities to do
maintenance on all the ferries instate.
MR. ECKLUND pointed out there is two yards, one in Seward and one
in Ketchikan. The one in Ketchikan is still trying to expand its
capabilities. He did not know that they can do every project that
might come up on the AMHS but we have the capability to do many of
the projects that the system generates.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the "Kennicott" is too large for
the dry-docks or for instate repair.
MR. ECKLUND referred that question to Mr. Doll.
Number 0051
BOB DOLL, Captain, General Manager, Marine Highway System,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, came before the
committee in support of HB 480.
MR. DOLL said HB 480 incorporates many of the practices already in
place and refers or makes a possible continuation of a contract for
the maintenance of the ships of the AMHS which we negotiated last
year and which we would like to continue to keep in place. He
mentioned they did have some suggestions in regard to the
legislation and those suggestions are embodied in amendments which
are before the committee. He stressed their support for the
legislation.
Number 0060
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK made a motion to adopt proposed
Amendment 1 for discussion.
Page 1, starting on line 12, after the word unreasonable,
delete:
[In making the determination, the commissioner shall consider,
and document in writing, the direct and indirect benefits to
the economy and labor force in the state that would be derived
by performing the vessel maintenance or repair work in the
state.]
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS noted there is a motion to adopt Amendment
1. He asked Mr. Doll to speak on it.
Number 0062
MR. DOLL stated it was the department's view that the objectives of
the legislation, and the words contained in the original document,
are always a part of our considerations. He thought the committee
would appreciate that the issue is always, what is the best way to
get the work done, to some degree the competition between the costs
(usually involved in getting work done in Alaska versus getting it
done outside) are always before us. Mr. Doll said, "Where the
advantages are clear we would like to be able to get the work done
in the area that includes the lowest costs that we can possibly
generate."
MR. DOLL stated the language of the original bill would create a
requirement to do a rather extensive economic survey that's
certainly beyond the capacity of anybody at DOT/PF to complete. To
know a purpose as far as they could determine, what we do with it
once it had been completed. We always consider the same factors
which are where's the best location and what's the best way to get
the work done on ships on the marine highway. Based on their
experience last year he believes that they're going to find more
often then not that the best way to do it is with a unified
contract in which all the ships are being maintained in Alaska.
Number 0077
MR. DOLL addressed the question raised earlier regarding whether
the Alaska shipyards are capable of doing all of the ships. He
said the only shortcoming that he knows of is with the Kennicott,
she has a set of stabilizers that project from the bottom of the
hull out at an angle of 20 or 30 degrees, they extend the clearance
that's required between the bottom of the ship and the bottom of
the dry dock. He believes, just about every time they dry-dock
that ship, they're going to want to extend those stabilizers. He
indicated he's not sure at this point that the dry docks in Alaska
are going to be able to do that. That's the only qualification,
other than that, the Ketchikan Shipyard can certainly handle all of
them.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how would you handle out-of-state
damage, a vessel damaged in the Seattle area.
Number 0093
MR. DOLL replied the U.S. Coast Guard is probably going to dictate
that outcome for us. Depending on what it is, it may have to be
completed or corrected immediately and if that's the case, we're
going to be told that it has to be done before the ship can proceed
any further. If we have discretion, either to postpone it or to do
it after the ship has arrived in another location, they would
certainly exercise that. But most often the circumstances are
going to dictate to us where we're going to get it done.
Number 0100
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Doll how does Amendment 1 affect the
fiscal note.
MR. DOLL replied the legislation as originally drafted, would
require a rather extensive - a determination in a case of every
ship, every contract that was let, to determine it's economic
effect on the entire state. If this language is eliminated so is
that economic determination eliminated and thus they can come up
with a zero fiscal note. By the way that would apply to all the
departments that had to get this type of work done which would
include the university, he assumes at the minimum, and so those
costs would grow with every contract that was written for this
purpose. With the amendment in place, those costs do not exist,
thus we come up with a zero fiscal note.
Number 0012
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON referred to page 1, line 8, "determines in
writing," whether or not that language is redundant if they're
taking out the language below, or whether or not that language
needs to remain on line 8. He indicated they're doing a second,
that this refers to another action by the agency, that the first in
writing (in line 8) would mandate that the commissioner would have
to determine in writing that there is no shipyard facility. He said
that's different from the economic analysis that's required in the
language that they're deleting. Representative Elton wants to make
sure that that's the case before they vote on the amendment.
MR. ECKLUND responded you're correct, those are two different
things. The amendment would delete the economic determination,
there would still need to be "in writing" (wouldn't have to be an
in depth economic determination), that there's a shipyard in the
state that can do the service at a reasonable cost.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said so that would be, the determination would
be to be made, for example in the stabilizer problem.
MR. ECKLUND agreed.
Number 0131.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked whether there was any objection. There
being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0137
MR. ECKLUND referred to proposed Amendment 2. He explained SB 192
(companion to HB 480) was amended in this same fashion. Amendment
2 would conform the two pieces of legislation. There's a shipyard
in Seward and there's one in Ketchikan - interport differential
would apply within those two shipyards, that's the effect of the
amendment.
Page 2, line 25-26:
Delete
[located outside of the state]
Page 2, line 27:
Delete
[outside of the state]
Page 2, line 29
Delete
[Alaska]
Insert
the designated base port
Number 0143
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 2.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked whether there was any objection. There
being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if they had eliminated the fiscal
note.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked who does most of the private sector's
work, is that done in Ketchikan or Seward.
Number 0149
MR. DOLL stated the Alaska Ship and Dry Dock in Ketchikan most
often does the bulk of the AMHS annual maintenance. The shipyard
in Seward has traditionally done those ships that are located in
the Prince William Sound area, in part because of the effects of
the interport differential as amended in this bill. It requires us
to include the (indisc. - noise) so that moving a ship from there
to Ketchikan. And in part because not all of these ships are
capable of making that transit. Of the eight ships of the AMHS,
let's say typically two of them will be done in Ketchikan and the
other two may most likely be done in Seward.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said his question was on the privately owned
vessels.
MR. ECKLUND indicated there is a person on line (teleconference)
in Ketchikan who might be able to answer that question.
Number 0163
DOUG WARD, Project Manager, Alaska Ship and Dry Dock, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 480. He stated, "I think
Mr.Ecklund did a very good job of summarizing the basis of our
support for the bill - the multi-vessel agreement I think is
mutually advantageous. We appreciate the efforts of the AMHS, Mr.
Doll put forth to execute - and last year's multi vessel agreement.
And with this bill we'll be able to negotiate a similar mutually
advantageous bill for next year's repair season."
MR. WARD replied to the question on private commercial work. He
said, "Here in Ketchikan we're expanding our customer base, as you
know, we've had a long-term operating agreement since last July,
and since that period the commercial fleet owners I think are
becoming comfortable in the knowledge that the Ketchikan shipyard
has the full support of the community of Ketchikan, as well as the
state of Alaska, and are comfortable in bringing their vessels to
our shipyard in Ketchikan now with this added ability of long-term
agreement. So our share of commercial work is growing steadily,
particularly since last July, with the execution of our long-term
operating agreement. I know that the Seward shipyard does a very
good job of marketing the commercial fleet operators in Kodiak and
the Gulf regions. So, both yards do have active commercial repair
ongoing agreement."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked for a brief explanation of his
abilities and capabilities in Ketchikan [Alaska Ship and Dry Dock].
Number 0184
MR. WARD replied, "We're officially a full-service shipyard. We're
able to execute a large scale of steel fabrication projects. That
was evident with the barge repair where we replaced the bottom of
a barge in less than 30 days - a very large steel job. We have an
excellent coating program here and we're able to apply coating,
even with the weather that we have. We've provided military
specifications coatings for Coast Guard work, and so on. We have
a full-service machine shop where we're able to execute most of the
work required for maintenance of the propulsion units on the state
ferries. We've got lathe capabilities, an excess of 50 feet, which
would handle the largest state shaft requirements on the 'M/V
Columbia.' So there is, with the exception of perhaps some
speciality items on the engine work, maybe some refrigeration
issues when we'd have to bring in a specialist from outside and
perhaps send out some of the parts on some of the propulsion
systems. We're essentially a full-service shipyard in Ketchikan."
Number 0199
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Ward to address the problem of the
stabilizers on the "Kennicott."
MR. WARD explained that they haven't seen the exact dimensions yet,
they're looking forward to doing that. They are, however, looking
at various modifications to the existing dry dock that will
accommodate the stabilizers so they're fully extended. They can
certainly handle the vessel's displacement and draft, he thinks
some pockets in the wing walls could be built in place to accept
the stabilizers when they're extended.
Number 0206
TOM MOORE, First Mate, Motor Vessel "LaConte," Marine Highway
System, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
testified via teleconference in support of HB 480. He said he just
took the "LaConte" in March to Portland and one of the problems
that they had, it wasn't a server problem but, of course, when you
have to be there at a certain time you have to go weather
permitting. He indicated the trip between Cape Flattery and over
the Columbia River Bar was very interesting. If they could have
stayed in Ketchikan it would have been a lot cheaper, he believes
they have adequate facilities for handling most of the work for the
AMHS.
Number 0215
MR. MOORE said the one question he has is the weather for doing
outside painting and hull work, and stuff, it seems to have been a
problem in the past. If they say that they're taking care of that,
he's in full support of this bill. He indicated it's very good for
the state, communities and the local workforce. The AMHS could use
more support from the state legislature, he sees there's support
from Alaska's U.S. Congressmen, this will help in the long run.
Mr. Moore reiterated his support for HB 480.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS jokingly said Ketchikan is the banana belt of
Alaska and asked Mr. Ward to speak to that.
Number 0223
MR. WARD pointed out they are currently preparing to wind up a
$60,000 grant, studying the cost-effective enclosure technology for
floating dry dock. He'll be going to Palm Beach, Florida, to
deliver a report to them and extend his request for a quarter of a
million-dollar grant to hold the design competition for enclosure
of floating dry dock, this particular dry dock is in Ketchikan.
Being in that they're in the sunbelt, they could use that for shade
as well.
Number 0233
MR. ECKLUND noted he talked to DOT/PF and the drafter this morning
regarding proposed Amendment 3, this would clarify that the AMHS is
going to write interport differential regulations. If there are
other departments that have vessels, they're going to refer to
those regulations when they calculated their interport differential
for those vessels. He indicated DOT/PF supports this and can
testify on it if they wish.
Page 1, line 11, after by
Insert: criteria established by the Alaska marine highway
system under this section,
Number 0246
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated this raises a whole new issue for
him, "criteria established by the Alaska marine highway system."
He said, "I would hope that what they would do is they would work
with the university and the Department of Fish and Game because
clearly some of the dry-dock needs of a research vessel may be
different than the dry-dock needs of a ferry. From what I
understand then those needs and the criteria developed would be
developed by the marine highway system and I would hope that that
would occur in consultation with other agencies that are out
there."
MR. ECKLUND said that is correct, Mr. Doll is going to testify on
that.
Number 0254
MR. DOLL stated the intent of this amendment is to simplify the
writing and the paperwork associated with adopting these
regulations. The apprehension is, that if we left the wording as
it appeared originally, that it would require a similar set of
regulations to be adopted by each of the departments. What we're
attempting to do is to minimize the amount of effort that has to go
into this - complying with this legislation by having the marine
highway system write the regulations which would probably be the
most extensive - all inclusive. And then those departments that
operate other vessels, usually smaller, cold employ those ports of
the marine highway system regulations that would apply to their
ship and avoid the necessity for them to go through the same drill
each in their turn. He indicated this was suggested to him by the
Office of the Attorney General. And, in the interest of saving
paperwork and effort, that's the motivation behind it.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he will support the amendment. He
suggested they touch base with the university and the Department of
Fish and Game to find out the comfort level that they may have.
CHAIR WILLIAMS mentioned someone from the Department of Fish and
Game is here to testify.
Number 0271
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game, came before the committee. He said,
"With me is Paul Larson, who is the Deputy Director for the
Commercial Fisheries Management [and Development] Division - they
operate vessels that the department operates in. Just to respond
briefly, in general to your question, and then if you have more
specifics Mr. Larson would be the one to address them to. But I
think in general, the concept of this amendment is a good one and
it would, as it was described by the marine highway system, be a
broad basis which then we would be able to work in specialized to
our needs and we are comfortable with that."
MR. BRUCE said in some respects the bill will simplify procedures
that they have to go through now to maintain their vessels and that
they won't have to go through competitive bids in certain cases.
Number 0282
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt Amendment 3. There
being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 0287
JAMES PRUITT, President, Seward Ship Dry Dock, testified in support
of HB 480 via teleconference. He noted they have a similar repair
maintenance agreement with the state, and that they have just
completed the M/V "Tustumena," which is now in port in Seward
getting ready to go back into service. Mr. Pruitt indicated they
have also worked on the M/V "Bartlett" in the past.
Number 0291
JAMES PRUITT said, "We are also a full-service shipyard, capable of
hauling five thousand tons, and a capacity of about 350 feet long.
We also have the capability of doing propulsion work on American
Bureau of Shipping, and Coast Guard inspected [vessels] to do so.
So I think we're fortunate that we do have two qualified shipyards
instate, with workforces in place, in communities that need the
work. And this seems like a win, win situation for all."
Number 0297
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 480 as amended,
with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected for the purpose of asking two
questions. He asked Mr. Ecklund what the definition of a marine
vessel, he's assuming we're not talking about 18 foot Boston
Whalers that are used for enforcement purposes.
MR. ECKLUND referred that question to Mr. Doll.
MR. DOLL stated, "That's an easily defined term, the first cut at
it that I would make would be a ship that operates in saltwater or
in the open ocean of some sort, rather than a river craft or lake
craft."
Number 0305
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that definition would be made through
the process of establishing, of the criteria that the department
would establish, at some point you would try to determine whether
or not an 18-foot Boston Whaler is...
MR. DOLL remarked, "I think we would define it as widely as we
could in order to make sure we had covered all of the contracts
that any state agency had regarding a vessel. I think if a
particular agency wanted to exclude a vessel, they'd have to make
a case to do that. Of course, then it would be their own
determination in any case. I think the vessels which were
contemplated, by the suggestions made to us for this amendment -
Amendment 3 that we added, were typically the fish and game
vessels, the law enforcement vessels. To my knowledge that we
didn't contemplate, I haven't heard anybody discuss anything other
than those salt water vessels."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated the reason he is asking the question
is because when you take the definition of whatever it may be of a
marine vessel, and then you add to the definition shipyard
facility, he wants to make sure that a local company who may not be
a shipyard facility, but does have the capability of working on an
inboard engine or does have the capability of patching a hole on a
fishery's enforcement vessel in a skiff size that that's allowed.
Number 0318
MR. ECKLUND replied the portion of HB 480 that you're talking about
is actually verbatim of the law that sunsetted, so different
departments must have addressed it in some manner, he's not sure
what that manner was, but it's the same language that was in law.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "When you make a determination on the
interport - when you determine there is no shipyard facility
located in the state that is equipped or qualified to perform a
particular function, what happens in the case when you have a
conflict for the shipyard. For example, maybe there is a
commercial user that has tied-up the dry dock space for a certain
period of time and you have a certain period of time, for example
in which you can lay-up the 'LaConte' for scheduling purposes. How
do you figure that into this kind of an equation, or do you just
have to take the bid and then take the time that may be available?"
Number 0326
MR. DOLL explained normally they would specify to the shipyard in
the invitation to bid - the window of time during which the work
could be completed. There certainly can arise cases where the
shipyard may ask for a few days, one side or another, because of
some particular conflict. He said, "Even after the contract is
let, there are always emergency cases where a shipyard is asked to
help keep the ship on top of the water, or perhaps been hold or
anything of the sort. And, certainly the cruise ships operating
here in Southeast would be prime candidates for that kind of
priority. I think that those kinds of things are worked out, sort
of ad hoc, and sometimes we might even have to defer to somebody
whose got an emergency job that needs to be done in order to avoid
pollution, those kinds of things would drive the decision-making in
that case. Maybe I should ask our contracting officer to comment
further on this, he may have encountered such situations, if that's
all right."
Number 0336
MARK O'BRIEN, Chief Contracts Officer, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, came before the
committee. He said it has occurred in the past where a yard is
tied-up. One option that the department always has is to send that
project out for competitive bid. And if the shipyard then elects
not to participate in that ship, then it will be likely going out-
of-state.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated nothing in this bill would force the
department to take it or leave it as far as time in the shipyard.
MR. O'BRIEN responded in the past that has not been a problem, the
shipyard will simply decline the work on that project.
Number 0342
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked because they're tied up and...
MR. O'BRIEN replied right. If that window does not exist in the
shipyard, perhaps Mr. Ward would like to address that issue. When
the time frame has not existed in the shipyard, they have passed on
that work, and then we can put it out to competitive bid.
Number 0345
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Representative Elton if he still upheld his
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated he will vote to move the bill out
and removed his objection.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced, hearing no objections, CSHB 480, as
amended, moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee
with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee at 1:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|