Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/21/1993 09:05 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 21, 1993
9:05 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-93, #67, Side 1 (454-end)
SFC-93, #67, Side 2 (575-end)
SFC-93, #69, Side 1 (000-end)
SFC-93, #69, Side 2 (575-225)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Drue Pearce, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:05 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chair Pearce, Senators Kelly, Kerttula,
Rieger, and Sharp were present. Co-chair Frank arrived soon
after the meeting began. Senator Jacko arrived as it was in
progress.
ALSO ATTENDING: Brian Andrews, Deputy Commissioner,
Treasury, Dept. of Revenue; Mead Treadwell, Deputy
Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation; Bruce
Geraghty, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Community and
Regional Affairs; Duane Guiley, Director, School Finance,
Dept. of Education; Gary Bader, Director, Administrative
Services, Dept. of Education; Ken Boyd, Deputy Director,
Division of Oil and Gas, Dept. of Natural Resources; Kent
Swisher, Director, Alaska Municipal League; Carl Rose,
Alaska Association of School Boards; Carolyn Berg, a private
citizen; Bob Poe, aide to Senator Pearce; Rick Solie, aide
to Senator Frank; and aides to committee members and other
members of the legislature.
ALSO PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE FROM ANCHORAGE: Judy
Brady, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal Bond Bank
Authority.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 7 - DEBT REIMBURSEMENT/MAINTENANCE GRANTS
Teleconference discussion was had with Judy Brady
as well as with Brian Andrews and Bob Poe in
Juneau. Co-chair Pearce announced that a task
force on school funding would be meeting
throughout the day in the Fahrenkamp Committee
Room. The bill was thus held in committee for
later action.
SB 60 - APPROP:SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUND
Discussion was had with Carl Rose. CSSB 60 (Fin)
($50,591,670) (new title) was reported out of
committee with individual recommendations.
SB 88 - CAPITAL PROJECT GRANTS
Brief discussion was had. The bill was
subsequently held in committee for additional
review.
SB 150 - OIL & GAS EXPLORATION LICENSES/LEASES
Discussion was had with Ken Boyd and Mead
Treadwell. CSSB 150 (Fin) version "D" and an
amendment by Senator Sharp were both adopted. The
bill was subsequently held in committee for
additional review.
HB 66 - MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS
Comments were offered by Rick Solie, Bruce
Geraghty, Ken Swisher, and Carolyn Berg. SCS CSHB
66 (Fin) was reported out of committee with zero
fiscal notes from the Dept. of Administration, and
Dept. of Education; two zero notes from the Dept.
of Community and Regional Affairs (homeowner prop.
tax and rental rebate for senior citizens); a
$1,109,520 note from the Dept. of Community and
Regional affairs (homeowner prop. tax exemp. for
disabled veterans); and a $162,294 fiscal note
from the Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs
(renters rebate for disabled veterans).
SENATE BILL NO. 7
An Act relating to reimbursement of school construction
debt; and providing for an effective date.
Upon convening the meeting, Co-chair Pearce acknowledged
that the committee had developed a work draft for the bill.
She then referenced ongoing problem areas and advised that a
task force consisting of committee staff and representatives
of the Dept. of Education, municipalities, school districts,
bond bank counsel, and the drafter from legal services would
be working throughout the day, in the Fahrenkamp Room, to
develop a formal committee substitute for presentation to
committee later in the day.
Co-chair Pearce noted a TELECONFERENCE link to Anchorage and
asked that JUDY BRADY, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal
Bond Bank Authority, speak to a problem that developed
yesterday afternoon. As background information, Ms. Brady
explained that the original proposal called for
establishment of a special fund, the interest from which was
to pay the 70% state contribution for school construction.
It soon became evident that the constitutional amendment
needed to set aside funding in a special account would not
be possible for "a couple of years." Municipalities still
want the state to pay the 70% while they continue to pay
30%. Problems arise because neither the bond bank nor other
institutions issuing debt could issue the state's 70% via
revenue bonds. Revenue bonds must be backed by collateral
or some form of income, other than an annual appropriation,
to pay off the bonds.
BOB POE, aide to Senator Pearce, next came before committee.
He directed attention to a draft CSSB 7 (Fin) (8-LS0142\J,
Ford, 4/20/93) and concurred in the above problem cited by
Judy Brady. The current draft allows for debt reimbursement
on a 70/30 basis for the two years prior to passage of an
amendment establishing the constitutional school
construction fund. When that fund is in place, the
municipal bond bank would have the authority to issue school
debt. Under the 70/30 arrangement, the state would pay 70%
of the construction cost, and the municipality would issue
30% of the debt in general obligation bonds through the
municipal bond bank. If the amendment to establish the
constitutional school construction fund does not pass, the
whole program would end--both debt reimbursement on a 70/30
basis and municipal bond bank ability to work with
municipalities on school debt.
Co-chair Pearce acknowledged concerns earlier expressed by
Senators Kelly, Kerttula, and Frank and advised that they
would be the subject of the ongoing task force. Senator
Kelly directed attention to page 3, line 12, and advised of
lack of support for state funding of "esoteric alternative
education programs." State funding should be committed to
basic education and classroom space. He then formally MOVED
for adoption of the following amendment at page 3, line 12:
delete "programs" and insert "facilities."
Co-chair Frank explained that the intent of existing
language is not to tell experts and bill drafters exactly
what to say but to provide a sense of what the committee
wants to accomplish. Co-chair Frank concurred in Senator
Kelly's statement regarding alternative programs.
End, SFC-93, #67, Side 1
Begin, SFC-93, #67, Side 2
Directing attention to page 5, line 30, Senator Kelly voiced
his belief that the maintenance threshold of $50,000 is too
low. He suggested that school districts statewide could
reasonably be expected to provide normal operational
maintenance and should not expect the state to pay 70% of
that cost. Senator Kelly recommended that $50,000 to
changed to $300,000. Co-chair Frank concurred. He said it
is appropriate for the state to share the cost of schools
and the cost of major renovations (roof replacement, etc.)
but not routine annual maintenance. He concurred that the
threshold should be consistent with the cost of major
renovations and/or replacement. Senator Kerttula voiced
agreement with the sense of the amendment. He cautioned,
however, that proposed changes not cause districts to ignore
maintenance and allow small problems to become major. Co-
chair Frank concurred in need to incorporate legislative
intent as well as an expression of what is authorized in
terms of renovation, rehabilitation, structural integrity,
etc. Co-chair Pearce suggested that renovation and
rehabilitation be permitted only in cases where regular
maintenance had routinely been accomplished. Senator Kelly
expressed need for statutory language accomplishing the
foregoing rather than a letter of intent.
Senator Kelly next noted that since conclusion of the former
80/20 construction program in 1990, only one school
district--Anchorage--has bonded. It would be unfair for
that district to pay 100% of its bonds while other districts
are reimbursed 70%. He then voiced need to amend the
proposed bill to include Anchorage bond issues within the
70/30 program. Senator Kerttula voiced support for the
amendment but stressed need to carefully structure language
to ensure that the allowance represents a one-time-only
effort. He then suggested that Barrow might also have
bonded for schools within the past two years.
BRIAN ANDREWS, Deputy Commissioner, Treasury, Dept. of
Revenue, came before committee. He voiced his understanding
that Anchorage was the only district to bond since
conclusion of the former program. Proposition 7 totaled
approximately $20 million, and Proposition 8 totaled $4
million.
Brief discussion followed between Co-chair Pearce and
Senator Kelly regarding the outcome of recent ballot
propositions in Anchorage.
Senator Sharp redirected attention to page 3, line 13, and
voiced need to ensure that language relating to "regional,
community, and school facilities" does not include
construction of administrative buildings.
Co-chair Pearce reiterated that a task force would be
working on the legislation in the Fahrenkamp room. Both the
room and a teleconference line are available from 9:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. She then asked that committee members make
concerns known to staff. The current Senate Finance
Committee meeting will ultimately be recessed with the
intent of reconvening later in the day for review of an
updated draft CSSB 7 (Finance).
Judy Brady observed that the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank
Authority had been "running figures . . . for about four
days" in an effort to develop the technical means of making
the bill work. She suggested that the Governor's plan to
use cash for two or three years would provide the catch-up
moneys in the fastest manner and in the greatest amount.
While bonding provides a long-term solution, it will provide
"much smaller amounts" than the Governor is proposing. Ms.
Brady reiterated that in terms of catch-up, cash will get
the state where it wants to go the "quickest."
Co-chair Pearce acknowledged the foregoing. She further
noted that the committee would be discussing SB 60--a cash
school construction package. The Co-chair acknowledged that
it contains less than the Governor and the House proposed,
and she further acknowledged catch-up needs, particularly in
rural Alaska. The question is: Where does that cash come
from? She then voiced committee belief that the BP
settlement money "is rightfully in the constitutional budget
reserve."
Co-chair Pearce directed that the meeting be briefly
recessed.
RECESS - 9:40 A.M.
RECONVENE - 9:50 A.M.
SENATE BILL NO. 60
An Act making appropriations for construction and major
maintenance of schools; and providing for an effective
date.
Upon reconvening the meeting, Co-chair Pearce directed that
SB 60 be brought on for discussion and referenced a new
draft CSSB 60 (Fin) to supercede the "M" version distributed
for review at the previous meeting. Co-chair Frank MOVED
for adoption of CSSB 60 (Fin) (8-GS1060\Q, Utermohle,
4/20/03, totaling $50,591,670). No objection having been
raised, the "Q" version of CSSB 60 (Fin) was ADOPTED.
Co-chair Pearce next directed attention to a proposed
amendment. She explained that the Dept. of Education noted
that single-site allocations set forth in Section 2 of the
bill are not consistent with SCS CSHB 45 (Fin) as passed and
signed by the Governor. Department numbers based on FY 93
actual student data should be inserted within Section 2.
The appropriate figures are set forth on a tabulation
attached to the proposed amendment. The new total would be
$24.0 less than the earlier version of the bill. Co-chair
Frank MOVED for adoption of the amendment designated
amendment no. 1. No objection having been raised, amendment
no. 1 was ADOPTED. Co-chair Pearce noted need to change the
line numbers set forth on the amendment from lines 20
through 29 to lines 11 through 19. She further noted need
to conform funding information on page 1 of the bill to the
above-noted reduction.
(Senator Jacko arrived at the meeting at this time.)
Co-chair Pearce called for testimony on the bill. CARL
ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, came before committee, voicing confusion over recent
legislative action. He then noted that the remainder of the
state has great needs, and the $50 million contained within
CSSB 60 (Fin) is inadequate to meet those needs. Of the $50
million, $9.5 is assigned to Ketchikan and $1.3 to Kodiak--
communities with bonding ability. Many communities do not
have that ability since they lack a tax base. The single-
site addition further complicates the issue since it
reflects $1 million taken from the capital budget to address
operating problems. That reduces capital needs
significantly. Mr. Rose questioned why the approach
contained within the proposed bill was taken by committee.
Senator Jacko MOVED that CSSB 60 (Fin) (An Act making
appropriations for school construction projects and making
an appropriation of $1,066,280 from the general fund to the
Department of Education for payment as grants for additional
district support for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1994;
and providing for an effective date) pass from committee
with individual recommendations. No objection having been
raised, CSSB 60 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee. Co-
chairs Pearce and Frank and Senator Jacko signed the
committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Senators
Rieger and Sharp signed "no recommendation." (Senators
Kelly and Kerttula were absent from the meeting and did not
sign.)
SENATE BILL NO. 88
An Act relating to grants to municipalities, named
recipients, and unincorporated communities;
establishing capital project matching grant programs
for municipalities and unincorporated communities;
establishing a local share requirement for capital
project grants to municipalities, named recipients, and
unincorporated communities; and providing for an
effective date.
Co-chair Pearce directed that SB 88 be brought on for
discussion. Co-chair Frank noted a request from Shelby
Stastny of the Office of Management and Budget that he be
allowed to work with the legislature on language relating to
legislative approval of capital matching grant projects.
Co-chair Pearce voiced her understanding that there is
presently no provision for legislative approval of capital
matching grant projects to be funded by moneys appropriated
during the current session. Co-chair Frank concurred. He
then cited the following options:
1. Operate the program in the same manner as last
year.
2. Allow OMB to approve projects subject to
subsequent
approval by the Legislative Budget and Audit
committee.
3. Allow OMB to approve projects only after
legislators
from the impacted district have signed off on
the
project.
Senator Rieger suggested it would be difficult to develop a
capital budget without knowing what the process will be,
particularly since SB 88 is still in the first house of
referral. Co-chair Frank recommended that the bill be held
in committee until later in the day. Co-chair Pearce noted
that the committee had prepared a $103.3 fiscal note for the
Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs and a $107.8 note
for the Dept. of Administration. She also referenced a new
municipal fiscal note from the Dept. of Community and
Regional Affairs.
SENATE BILL NO. 150
An Act providing for oil and gas exploration licenses,
and oil and gas leases, in certain areas of the state;
and providing for an effective date.
Co-chair Pearce directed that SB 150 be brought on for
discussion. She referenced a draft CSSB 150 (Fin) (8-
GS1012\D, Chenoweth, 4/19/93) which she explained contains
amendments 1 through 5, adopted by committee at the April
18, 1993, meeting. Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of the
"D" version of CSSB 150 (Fin) as a working document. No
objection having been raised, the "D" version was ADOPTED.
Senator Sharp directed attention to amendment no. 6 at page
11, lines 11 through 20. He said the proposed language
change would make administration easier for regulators and
avoid the necessity of development of additional regulations
since it defines average production on a monthly basis. Co-
chair Pearce asked why proof of financial responsibility
requirements were reduced to less than $20 million per
incident. Senator Sharp cited need to encourage small
developers and exploration companies to produce from limited
capacity fields without being subject to $20 million
liability on small production. He referenced a situation in
Cook Inlet as an example of how the new provision would
operate.
Co-chair Pearce voiced concern over reducing liability for
an on-shore facility to $1 million per incident. She then
inquired concerning liability for off-shore exploration
facilities. Senator Rieger noted that liability for off-
shore facilities remains at $50 million.
Brief discussion of on and off-shore facilities followed
between Co-chair Pearce, Senator Rieger, and KEN BOYD,
Deputy Director, Division of Oil and Gas, Dept. of Natural
Resources.
MEAD TREADWELL, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Natural
Resources, came before committee in response to questions
concerning proof of financial responsibility. He explained
that the department accepts bonds, insurance, net assets,
etc. The department seeks to ensure that an entity has the
financial resources to clean up a spill and pay resource
damages from the spill.
Discussion followed between Co-chair Pearce and Mr.
Treadwell regarding contingency plan requirements for
exploration facilities.
Co-chair Pearce again expressed concern regarding the
lowering of liability requirements, citing costs associated
with a recent cleanup by the Alaska Railroad. Mr. Treadwell
pointed to broad authority by the Dept. of Natural Resources
to set bonding requirements associated with surface leases.
The Dept. of Environmental Conservation does not accept that
bond as proof of financial responsibility.
Senator Kerttula voiced need for adequate liability and
proof of responsibility for operators. He expressed concern
over proposed decreases. Co-chair Frank voiced his
understanding that $20 million was "wildly more" than any
other state for on-shore facilities. Mr. Treadwell informed
members that Alaska's requirements are the highest in the
country. They were developed following the EXXON VALDEZ oil
spill.
Further comments by Mr. Treadwell followed regarding surface
and subsurface rights and respective ownership. He
acknowledged a number of tank situations where long-time
contamination has gone from one property to another.
Co-chair Frank said that he did not disagree that potential
liability may be greater than limits within the proposed
amendment. He stressed need to look at risks and rewards in
a broad context. The state has resources it wishes to
develop. Alaska wishes to encourage oil and gas exploration
and production. It thus seeks to encourage both small and
multinational companies. On-shore cleanup is easier than a
water spill. Proof of financial responsibility could thus
be less. Co-chair Pearce reiterated her belief that $1
million is too low. On-shore facilities may be located
close enough to tidal action to impact waterways.
Senator Sharp recited a listing of other states and their
on-shore liability requirements. Alaska also requires
"plugging and abandonment bonding" amounting to $100,000 per
well. The highest of any other state is $10,000. Senator
Sharp further attested to oil and gas conservation
commission responsibility for prescribing "absolute well-
drilling procedures and safety equipment required to be used
during the drilling." He then recited a listing of such
equipment and other controls that must be in effect.
Senator Kerttula voiced need to establish necessary minimum
safety levels to guard against desecration by independent
exploration.
Senator Sharp advised that he would withdraw amendment no.
6.
End, SFC-93, #67, Side 2
Begin, SFC-93, #69, Side 1
In response to a question from Co-chair Pearce, Senator
Sharp explained that his amendment bases liability on
monthly rather than daily production. Monthly production
is easier to measure. Co-chair Pearce voiced her
understanding that reduction of liability for on-shore
exploration from $5 to $1 million was contained in the
Senate Oil and Gas version of the bill. Senator Sharp
concurred. Co-chair Pearce requested that Senator Sharp
again offer amendment no. 6 since the area of contention
that reduced liability for on-shore exploration was not part
of the amendment. Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of
amendment no. 6. Senator Rieger directed attention to
subsection (f) and suggested that proof of financial
responsibility for an on-shore production facility be based
on the higher of the average monthly production. Mead
Treadwell explained that the intent of the language in
subsection (f) is to set financial responsibility at either
the average production of the past year for an ongoing
operation or on maximum engineered design capacity for a new
facility with no previous production. There may be
situations where a well may have declined to ten or twenty
barrels a day. If the facility was engineered for 4,000
barrels a day, addition of the words "higher of" to
liability language could fix liability at original design
capacity. That is not the intent of subsection (f). Co-
chair Pearce suggested that subsection (f) be separated into
two sections, one to apply to existing and the other to new
facilities. Senator Rieger suggested that fields do not
normally decline quickly. He held to need to add the new
language, saying that there may be cases where production
actually increases. Co-chair Frank voiced support for the
language as submitted by the department. Senator Rieger
formally MOVED to amend subsection (f) by adding "higher of
the" before the word "average" on the second line. Senator
Sharp OBJECTED, saying that actual production is a better
indication of risk. Co-chair Pearce called for a show of
hands on the amendment. Senator Rieger's amendment FAILED
on a vote of 1 to 4.
Senator Kerttula voiced need for a definition of "on shore."
He voiced particular concern that facilities not impact
bogs, marshes, and wetlands. Mead Treadwell said that he
would phone the department and attempt to obtain a better
definition. Senator Kerttula indicated need to ensure that
it means dry land at some distance from contaminant
potential. Co-chair Frank expressed reluctance to allow an
agency to define the term.
Further discussion followed between members and Mr. Boyd
regarding definitions contained within Title 38.
Comments followed regarding the location of the recent
Alaska Railroad spill and costs associated therewith.
Senator Rieger voiced discomfort with bill provisions
lowering on-shore liability to $1 million.
Co-chair Pearce directed that CSSB 150 (Fin) be held pending
response to the above-noted concerns.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 66(FIN) am
An Act relating to an exemption from and deferral of
municipal property taxes for certain primary
residences, to property tax equivalency payments for
certain residents, to the determination of full and
true value of taxable property in a municipality; and
providing for an effective date.
Co-chair Pearce directed that CSHB 66 (Fin)am be brought on
for discussion and referenced a new draft SCS CSHB 66 (Fin)
(8-GH1032\M, Cook, 4/20/93), two new fiscal notes from the
Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs, and an April 20,
1993, memorandum from Tam Cook regarding the optional tax
exemption.
RICK SOLIE, aide to Co-chair Frank, came before committee.
He advised of need for a technical amendment. Co-chair
Frank MOVED for adoption of the "M" version of SCS CSHB 66
(Fin). He explained that the draft contains provisions for
municipalities to opt out of the senior citizens' portion of
the tax exemption but not from the exemption for veterans.
Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that the draft would
prohibit a municipality from opting out of an exemption for
disabled veterans. He then requested clarification of
language at Sec. 5. Rick Solie advised that changes within
Sec. 5 allow a municipality to increase the exempted amount
for disabled veterans.
Senator Kelly suggested that reference to the municipal
option should be included within title language. He then
MOVED to amend the title as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Following the word "to" add: "a municipal option for"
He said that the thrust of the Senate Finance version is the
option, and it should be so stated in the title. No
objection having been raised, the title amendment was
ADOPTED.
CAROLYN BERG came before committee representing "most of the
pioneers in Alaska." She stressed that the state has an
important and legitimate interest in preserving and
protecting the health of its senior citizens. That cannot
be done when the existing senior citizen property tax
exemption is posed for cut off at a time when health care
costs are the greatest. Senator Kelly attested to Mrs.
Berg's many years of involvement in issues before the
legislature. Senator Kerttula concurred in need for the
state to take the leadership on behalf of senior citizens.
Narrow-tax-based local communities often cannot provide much
support. Much of available local resources are devoted to
schools. Seniors are a contributing influence by virtue of
expenditure of their income. It would be an "incorrect
posture for the state not to give direction to local
governments to continue a senior citizen discount program."
He termed the proposed legislation "a bad bill."
KEN SWISHER, Alaska Municipal League, next came before
committee. He voiced a preference for the House version of
the legislation over the newly adopted SCS CSHB 66(Fin).
The House legislation allowed maximum flexibility to local
governments to structure programs most fitting the local
level. The preferred option is for full funding of the
exemptions. Support for CSHB 66 (Fin)am is the second
choice.
The Municipal League surveyed local officials to determine
what action might be taken should the legislation pass.
Most agree that the matter will become an issue at the local
level, and some form of action will be taken. The survey
covered Anchorage, Kenai, Juneau, MatSu, Cordova, and
Valdez. Referencing the disabled veterans mandate, Mr.
Swisher expressed a preference for municipalities to be able
to consider need. The needy should be helped rather than
those who do not require assistance. Assistance to those
who are not needy comes at the expense of those who do.
Preserving seniors in their homes is of great value. The
league supports that effort. On the other hand, a number of
young families have difficulty keeping their children fed
and clothed. Senator Kerttula spoke to tax payments by
seniors over many years. He reiterated that most of the
support at the local level goes to schools. Taxpayers
continue to support schools long after their children have
graduated. Mandating the continued exemption should not
adversely impact boroughs. Senator Kerttula took exception
to the position taken by the league, terming it
"intolerable."
BRUCE GERAGHTY, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Community and
Regional Affairs, next came before committee. He initially
spoke to problems surrounding lack of a disability threshold
for the disabled veteran exemption and suggested that the
committee include language relating to 50% disability. At
the present time there are 703 disabled veterans who would
qualify for the program. Of that number, 421 are in
Anchorage.
Mr. Geraghty expressed the department preference for an
earlier work draft of the bill, distributed for review at a
prior meeting. That version allows municipalities the
greatest flexibility and maintains programs unless
municipalities take action to alter them.
Discussion followed between Mr. Geraghty and committee
members regarding inclusion of the 50% disability threshold
in the earlier version and lack thereof in adopted version
"M." Rick Solie clarified the issue by explaining that the
since the "M" version does not amend "any aspect of the
disabled veterans' program" there was no need for the
definition. Mr. Geraghty said the department would have no
problem with the bill if the definition remains in law. Mr.
Solie concurred that it remains in existing statutes.
Senator Kerttula noted that a 10% disability in youth may
comprise a much larger percentage as one grows older. He
then asked if statutes contain a method of reevaluating
injuries. Mr. Geraghty said that the department does not
determine disability. It is identified at the time of
discharge from the military. If an adjustment needs to be
made, the issue would be dealt with by the Dept. of Military
and Veterans' Affairs. Co-chair Pearce asked that Mr.
Geraghty research the matter and provides members
information on available avenues.
Co-chair Pearce called for additional questions or comments
on the bill. Senator Kerttula MOVED to TABLE the bill. Co-
chair Frank OBJECTED. Co-chair Pearce called for a show of
hands. The motion FAILED on a vote of 1 to 5.
Co-chair Frank MOVED for passage of SCS CSHB 66 (Fin) with
individual recommendations and the appropriate fiscal notes.
Senator Kerttula OBJECTED. Co-chair Pearce called for a
show of hands. The motion CARRIED on a vote of 5 to 1, and
SCS CSHB 66 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee with the
following fiscal notes:
DOA 0
DOE 0
DC&RA (homeowner exemption, seniors) 0
DC&RA (renter rebate, seniors) 0
DC&RA (homeowner exemption, veterans) $1,109,520
DC&RA (renter rebate, veterans) $ 162,294
Co-chairs Pearce and Frank and Senators Rieger and Sharp
signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation.
Senator Kelly signed "do pass as amended." Senator Kerttula
signed "do not pass." (Senator Jacko was absent from the
meeting and did not sign.)
RECESS
Co-chair Pearce directed that the meeting be recessed at
this time, and scheduled to reconvene later in the day for
continued hearing and action on SB 7, SB 88, and SB 150.
The meeting was recessed at approximately 11:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|