Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/09/2004 01:30 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 9, 2004
1:30 p.m.
TAPE(S) 04-21
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Con Bunde, Chair
Senator Ralph Seekins, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 357
"An Act relating to the regulation of insurance, insurance
licenses, qualifications of insurance producers, surplus lines,
fraud investigations, electronic transactions, and compliance
with federal law and national standards; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 350
"An Act relating to the four dam pool joint action agency; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 350(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 323
"An Act relating to a project owner's liability for workers'
compensation and the exclusiveness of liability for workers'
compensation."
MOVED SB 323 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 340
"An Act relating to damages in an action for a defect in the
design, construction, and remodeling of certain dwellings; and
providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 357
SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
03/01/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/04 (S) L&C, FIN
03/09/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 350
SHORT TITLE: 4 DAM POOL JOINT ACTION AGENCY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS G
02/16/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (S) L&C, FIN
03/09/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 323
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS COMPENSATION AND CONTRACTORS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SEEKINS
02/13/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/04 (S) L&C, JUD
03/04/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/04/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/09/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Linda Hall, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110800
Juneau, AK 99811-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 357.
Mr. Thomas Lovas, Chief Executive Officer
Four-Dam Pool Power Agency
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110400
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 350.
Mr. Bob LeResche, Financial Advisor
Four-Dam Pool Power Agency
703 W. Tudor, Suite 102
Anchorage AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 350.
Mr. Phil Eide
Counsel to the State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second St., Ste. 201
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 323.
Mr. Jack Miller
Counsel to the State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second St., Ste. 201
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 323.
Ms. Mary Shields, General Manager
Northwest Technical Services
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 323.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-21, SIDE A
SB 357-INSURANCE
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Present were Senators
Gary Stevens, Ralph Seekins, Hollis French and Chair Con Bunde.
Senator Bettye Davis arrived at 1:40. The first order of
business to come before the committee was SB 357.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that SB 357 is the insurance omnibus bill
that ensures state consistency with federal law and the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and contains
reforms to standards and guidelines. It updates procedures and
transactions within the Division of Insurance. He generally
summarized that it would:
Provide an electronic communications opportunity
between the Division of Insurance, the public, the
industry and other regulators with the goal of
promoting efficiencies. It has provisions and changes
for reinsurance, contains recommendations on licensing
revisions that have been suggested by an NAIC
accreditation team. It changes the liability for civil
damages when filing reports concerning fraudulent acts
to a person involved in the prevention and detection
of fraudulent insurance acts. It contains provisions
that clarify that a Guaranty Fund deposit is required
for title insurance companies and it provides changes
to tax and late payments to make penalties more
consistent with the Department of Revenue's statutes.
It includes penalties for surplus line brokers who
submit late payments on taxes. In general, these
changes to Title 21 will promote consistency between
Alaska and other states, promote more efficient
operations and provide better public protection.
MS. LINDA HALL, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Community & Economic Development (DCED), said SB 357 deals with
changes to Title 21.
The changes that we have proposed in this bill are, we
feel, necessary to keep Alaska statutes consistent
with some federal law. There were a number of changes
to licensing several years ago to meet the
requirements of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and with
model acts and standards of the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).... Some of the
changes are a result of the accreditation process. We
are accredited by the NAIC. Some are the result of an
industry task force and others are just reflective of
what we think are good business practices....
I have categorized what I think are the most
significant changes into six categories. [Indisc.] We
thought that was appropriate. We did, however, on the
other end in each of those sections include a $10,000
penalty for willful violation of these statutes.
[Indisc.]
MS. HALL explained that reinsurance is basically insurance for
insurance companies and if a non-admitted [to Alaska] insurer
takes over the insurance of a domestic insurer, the division
needs to be involved in that. That situation typically occurs
when the state has an insolvent insurer. Further, she explained
that there were changes for domestic seeding of insurers
requiring them to be licensed in the state where they are
domiciled.
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS arrived at 1:40 p.m.
MS. HALL stated that sections 12 and 13 deal with the licensing
of a reinsurer and use language taken from the NAIC model
regulation. She explained that a number of years ago, a pool of
life insurers, Unicover, provided reinsurance for workers'
compensation coverage, called a carve-out. It eventually
unraveled and became insolvent. Out of this situation, probably
the most important activity that really came to light for
regulators is when they realized life insurance companies were
reinsuring workers' compensation and weren't licensed to do
that.
Section 12 sought to provide some assurances that the
state of domicile is aware that the reinsurer is
writing the workers' compensation line of business and
does not object.
MS. HALL explained that the financial statements and analyses of
life insurance companies are significantly different from the
financial statements and analyses of property casualty insurers.
NAIC is the regulatory joint body of regulators from each state.
They recently recognized this difference in financial analyses
by requiring an additional supplemental financial form that
could be done with just a letter. We're looking to make sure the
state of domicile of domestic companies in Alaska who currently
reinsure portions of their workers' compensation book of
business is aware of that.
We're certainly not looking to make a statute change
that puts our domestic companies at a disadvantage....
When the workers' compensation is a property casualty
line, we want to make sure they are aware so they do
the additional analysis that's required of a property
casualty carrier.
MS. HALL explained further that:
The other two reinsurance sections, sections 47 and
48, require a filing approval by the director of the
reinsurance agreements. We have had several inquiries
about this item and it is my intent to work with
industry in changing the language. We would make the
requirement to file with the director. We would not
necessarily think we would have to approve the company
insurance agreement and ... to make the reinsurance
agreements confidential. They are proprietary; they
are the financial terms on which an insurance company
purchases their insurance and we do think that's
appropriate.
In some past financial examinations, there have been
difficulties [in] obtaining signed reinsurance
agreements. We are willing to make the changes
necessary to address the concerns of industry, but we
also need to meet the needs of our financial
examiners. So, we would like to make sure that we do
have the authority to obtain signed copies of the
reinsurance agreements. The reinsurance is part of the
financial examination to determine the level of risk
an insurance company can afford. So, I would
anticipate bringing some changes in language for your
consideration.
CHAIR BUNDE asked when he could anticipate those changes.
MS. HALL replied that she had the language today. She would
bring it to him for review. She continued her explanation:
The fourth section that has major changes is
licensing. Over the years, we have tried to make
Alaska licensing consistent with the rest of the
country. There are some federal regulations that
require us to make certain provisions so that we are
reciprocal with other states. We have attempted to do
that - [it] allows our resident licensees to be able
to obtain licenses in other areas as well as allows
non-residents to do business here.
Changes briefly - we will add crop insurance, not that
we have a lot of that, and surety licenses that
currently are not licensed sections. They are just
included in the property casualty licenses. We are
proposing to eliminate trainee licenses so that we are
consistent with national regulations. There are very
few trainee licenses today and we feel it's better for
someone to study to become licensed before they start
dealing with the public.
We have removed some language that could impose some
barriers for what we call limited lines license, bail
bonds and - I'm drawing a total blank. Then we have
statutory language that said they must. Their sole
purpose is to be appointed by an insurance company.
It's a burden that we don't think is appropriate
today.
We have some sections that delete additional
experience requirements that are inconsistent with
federal regulations that would put some of our
licensees at a disadvantage with other states and we
are also requiring that surplus lines brokers be
licensed as producers before they can become a surplus
lines broker. These changes, again, are basically
consistent with the National Producer Model Licensing
Act and to bring Alaska into compliance with that.
This section is surplus lines. In the summer of 2003,
we had an industry task force that met three times
with the Division of Insurance staff to look at our
statutes and our regulations. That's the practice of
surplus lines business. Surplus lines business - we
have two kinds of insurance placements. One is called
admitted insurance companies. We regulate them; we
have to approve their rates. We approve their forms;
they jump through all the hoops to be considered
admitted insurers. We have another group of insurance
companies who for various reasons choose to do
business on a non-admitted basis in not only our
state, but in many states. These are called surplus
lines companies. It doesn't mean that they are of less
value or of less financial stability; it just means
they have chosen to operate differently.
Because the business of insurance is so protected for
our consumers, there are special statutes and
regulations that tell how that business must be
conducted. There are particular disclosures that are
given; the business just operates somewhat differently
than the traditional insurance market that most people
are aware of.
The producer group that met this summer with division
staff evaluated how Alaska works and this included not
only Alaskan surplus lines brokers, we also had people
come to these meetings from Seattle where a lot of
Alaska business is written. So, we had a fairly broad,
I felt, representation of industry to look at how we
do business, how efficiently we work.
The changes that I would highlight for you in this
particular section - one would allow that for the
placement of health insurance in the surplus lines
arena, if we had a health insurance crisis. The
criteria, and there are some fairly strict
stipulations in that section, but the basic criteria
[is] we have to find it in the public interest. This
was done at the suggestion of the Washington Surplus
Lines Brokers. A number of years ago, there was a lot
of publicity when Washington literally had [indisc.]
surplus lines markets lines for coverage. If you can't
find coverage in the traditional market, you go to the
surplus lines market. They suggested we make this
statutory provision that should we ever get into a
crisis situation, it would allow us some flexibility.
CHAIR BUNDE asked her how she would define a health insurance
crisis.
MS. HALL answered:
We don't define it in statute, but we talk about in
the public's interest. If we had no insurance
companies that were willing to write health insurance
here... It can't be done for competitive reasons, it
can't be done for pricing reasons; it truly would be
when we found a real need in our market. Typically,
surplus lines placements are done after there's a
diligent search. In the traditional market, coverage
is not available or at least not on the same terms.
That's the only way that coverage can be placed in a
surplus lines market.
CHAIR BUNDE inserted, "There is very likely a premium for those
premiums."
MS. HALL affirmed:
Yes, there is. They typically are more expensive....
Basically - the health insurance example - if there
were no or maybe one health insurer left in the state,
and I would hate to think we'd get there, but we don't
know what will happen going forward. If there were no
insurance companies or maybe one that refused to take
your business, we still have the ACHIA [Alaska
Comprehensive Health Insurance Association] high-risk
pool. But, it would allow the Division of Insurance to
make provisions for a company that did not today have
a certificate of authority to do business in our
state, but that was a stable company, that we had
their financial statements that we reviewed their
rates. We could allow them to do business in that
circumstance.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if it was the lack of a certificate of
authority that classified them as a surplus line.
MS. HALL replied that is correct. She continued her explanation:
Section 32 requires some changes in the documents that
are provided. Today, in our statutory language, we
have requirements to produce documents from the
surplus lines of a broker to the insured that are
practically impossible to meet. It asks for everything
that would be in the policy from every exclusion to
every condition; and it's very difficult to do that in
any effective way. We do feel that the insured is
entitled to a document that outlines all the material
parts of an insurance policy it needs and we do
specify in the proposed statute the pieces that would
have to be there. When we name the subject of
insurance, the insurance company, the premium and
material exclusions coverage limitations, we think the
insured certainly have a right to have that
information prior to purchase of the insurance policy.
There is also a provision currently in statute that a
policy is not binding and does not have to be paid for
until the insured gets the notices that are required
under the surplus lines statute and notices of what
those coverages are.
The other section I would like to point out is section
33, which places responsibility on a producing broker
as well as the surplus lines broker for notice to the
consumer of a surplus lines placement. There is
statutory language that requires the insured to be
notified of the fact and we've all become familiar
with… solvencies and the Guaranty Fund. It has a much
different meaning today. There is a requirement on any
surplus lines policy that there is a stamp and type 10
print. So it's a particular size that's on every
policy and notice is to be given to every insured that
surplus lines polices are not subject to the Guaranty
Fund. So, that is another difference, Senator French,
with the surplus lines coverages. They do not have the
protection of the Guaranty Association. So, this
notice requirement requires the producer, as well as
the surplus lines broker, to give that notice to the
consumer.
CHAIR BUNDE asked her to differentiate between surplus lines and
reinsurance. "In essence, wouldn't my company basically go to
surplus lines to reinsure?"
MS. HALL replied:
No, reinsurance companies actually can be admitted
insurance companies in their state of domicile with a
certificate of authority. Some of them are from
countries other than the United States. Those are
called aliens - in case we wanted to know that. We are
the domestic company if they are in your state. A
company that is domiciled in another state is called a
foreign insurer and if they are in another country,
they are an alien insurer. Many of the reinsurance
companies are domiciled in European countries. So, the
reinsurance is the insurance companies' insurance.
They write your $1,000 policy. They retain - I'm using
really general figures - they retain $100 of that risk
and they reinsure the other $900. That reinsurance
counts as part of the financial [indisc.].
CHAIR BUNDE said that the committee looked forward to working on
a CS that would incorporate the changes she wants in about two
weeks.
SB 350-4 DAM POOL JOINT ACTION AGENCY
CHAIR CON BUNDE announced SB 350 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, sponsor, moved to adopt CSSB 350(L&C),
version \D, for discussion purposes. There were no objections
and it was so ordered.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS explained that CSSB 350(L&C) allows the
Four-Dam Pool Power Agency to refinance a substantial loan that
they have owed to AIDEA [Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority] returning about $73 million to the state,
which the Legislature could use or redirect AIDEA to use. It
also provides several technical corrections in support of this
financing that have been requested by bond counsel. It supports
refunding money to consumers by lowering their interest rates
and also enhances the options available to the Four-Dam Power
Agency concerning Interties and other activities.
MR. THOMAS LOVAS, Chief Executive Officer, Four-Dam Pool Power
Agency, said SB 350 is supported by the five communities that
participate in it - the City of Kodiak and its environs, the
Valdez Copper Valley Basin area and the Cities of Ketchikan,
Petersburg and Wrangell.
These communities all banded together, as you recall,
in the year 2000 and formed the Four-Dam Pool Power
Agency with the intent that it would be a priority
provided by the Legislature to acquire the four
hydroelectric projects previously owned by the State
of Alaska. The financing of that particular
transaction was with the loan from the State of Alaska
through the auspices of the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority. It provided for a
multiple year's financing vehicle for the acquisition.
The funds were a cash transaction from AIDEA, which
was transferred ultimately over into the Power Cost
Equalization Program. At this point in time, the
utilities and the agency representing the utilities
have paid down a portion of that debt; the interest
rate is at about 6.5 percent. What we have found in
the past year of operation is that the history of our
organization and our structure is such that we can now
consider alternative forms of financing including the
ability to actually form a bond sale of the tax-exempt
note [indisc.] to offset that high cost note with
AIDEA. We understand that the structure of the agency
was established as a tax-exempt authority for its
purposes in providing public power for the communities
and the members and we would like to move forward on
the process.
The technical corrections we have requested to the
enabling legislation in the formation of the pool do a
couple of things. It provides a technical correction
to ensure our ability to issue tax-exempt debt on
behalf of these communities and their citizens; it
also includes a clarification of our ability to use
the project as an effective security for a mortgage
note or any other vehicle that we would ultimately
come up with under a refinancing alternative. It also
insures that the projects will remain in the service
of the communities when they are assigned as security
for this debt.
As Senator Stevens indicated, the legislation does
provide a potential significant savings to the
communities on a lower interest rate as well as
bringing in a significant amount of money into the
hands of AIDEA in the refinancing of that particular
note.
I might mention, also, that the Four-Dam Pool Power
Agency passed a resolution in its December meeting
supporting the concept of refinancing using these
types of tax-exempt bonds and we appreciate your
consideration of the technical amendments to help that
promise come true. That clarifies, I hope, the intent
of the legislation. I believe it's a very beneficial
piece of legislation that works for the benefit of all
residents of the State of Alaska, as well as providing
for the needs of the Four-Dam Pool Power Agency. Thank
you very much.
CHAIR BUNDE commented that refinancing costs money, in his
experience, and asked him why this method of financing wasn't
chosen initially.
MR. LOVAS replied that he became employed by the agency about a
year and a half ago, but his understanding is that various
mechanisms were looked at then, but the agency didn't have any
history and the most expedient form of acquiring financing was
the note through AIDEA.
MR. BOB LERESCHE, Financial Advisor, Four-Dam Pool Power Agency,
agreed and said the agency had no credit when it was first
formed and these bonds have been very costly, if not impossible,
to issue. He pointed out that when AIDEA did this financing, the
interest rate of 6.5 percent was good for credit of this
quality. "Times have changed and the agency can get a better
deal for their ratepayers and at the same time return $73
million cash to AIDEA."
CHAIR BUNDE asked when the Four-Dam Pool communities issue debt,
will the full faith and credit of the State of Alaska still be
the ultimate backer of those bonds.
MR. LERESCHE replied, "No, there will be no state credit
backing, whatsoever, of these bonds."
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked what the likely new interest rate
would be on financing of this nature.
MR. LOVAS replied that interest rates could potentially go as
low as 5 percent, maybe less. Two things would be necessary, one
would be to obtain an appropriate credit rating from a registrar
of a grading agency of credit and the other would be to look at
potentially insuring the bonds with a relatively modest fee.
We believe in the range of 4.8 or 5.0 percent is a
reasonable expectation for us, if we can move forward
immediately and act in the markets within a very short
period of time.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if this would be a mortgage or a bond.
MR. LERESCHE replied, "It's a bond, but it might well include a
mortgage as part of the credit."
SENATOR FRENCH speculated that was the hitch - that ownership of
the pool could fall into hands outside the state, if it couldn't
meet its obligations.
MR. LERESCHE replied:
I guess theoretically so. However, when you issue a
bond in the open market as the agency is intending to
do, nobody wants to own the project. It's just mostly
really a psychological crutch to make them think they
really have control over these people if they don't
pay them. I might point out as well that the current
AIDEA loan includes a mortgage just as we contemplate
attaching to the new bond.
SENATOR FRENCH queried:
If you were to refinance the total amount at 5
percent, what would that do for the debt service? How
much would it go down and what do you expect that
would do, if you've calculated it to the average
homeowner's electric bill?
MR. LOVAS replied:
We've estimated as much as an annual savings of
between $800,000 to $1,500,000 depending on certain
implications of the use of the tax-exempt debt. There
are some complications having to do with securities
laws on how the tax-exempt debt could ultimately be
applied among the municipalities versus the
cooperatives and it affects the total net savings
we're likely to see. In any case, it's going to be at
least that minimum sum then.
I haven't quite measured it all the way down to the
ratepayer, frankly, because I'm looking at it from the
agencies' point of view - a wholesale power sale. We
don't sell retail. We sell as wholesale at the G&T for
power delivered to the utilities for resale to their
ultimate customers. The impact can vary depending on
what the retail rate of each of my members is. But, in
any case, that reduces the debt service cost rather
significantly by about upwards of $1.5 million and it
would have a multiple percentage reduction in our
wholesale power rate.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what current debt service costs per annum.
MR. LOVAS replied that the debt service now is about $6.5
million per year.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked them for their testimony and said there were
no further comments to come before the committee on SB 350 today
and that he would hold it for a time.
2:15 - 2:20 - at ease
SB 323-WORKERS COMPENSATION AND CONTRACTORS
CHAIR CON BUNDE announced SB 323 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, sponsor, said he felt the same way about
a contractor's responsibility now as he did when he first had
the bill drafted. When a homeowner hires a professional to
perform work, they shouldn't have to rise to the same level of
professional responsibility as a project owner. A contractor in
the business of building homes, who hires subcontractors to do
framing, plumbing and electrical work, should bear that level of
responsibility because of their professional capabilities. That
is why homeowners are deliberately left out of the bill.
MR. PHIL EIDE, Counsel to the State Chamber of Commerce, offered
to answer questions on the bill along with his colleague, Jack
Miller, both from the firm of Eide, Miller & Pate.
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that E-mail from Mr. Jack Miller
discussed how the chain of responsibility from project owner
through subcontractor would occur.
As I read this, it expands the obligation for workers'
compensation up to the project owner and the people
below them that may or may not have workers'
compensation, but the buck stops at the top. That's if
I understand it correctly.
MR. JACK MILLER, Counsel to the State Chamber of Commerce, said
that is a correct interpretation and this bill does not affect
the state statute that requires companies to get workers'
compensation insurance.
TAPE 04-21, SIDE B
MR. MILLER said that is a moot point in relation to this
legislation.
MS. MARY SHIELDS, General Manager, Northwest Technical Services,
said that she supports SB 323. She stated:
Workers' compensation, as we all know, was established
to cover workplace injuries without the need of an
employee to file in court for just medical and wage
compensation occurred at the job site. This has
enabled employees and employers to be assured that if
the employee was injured on the job, the employee
would not be abandoned and we would not end up with
court cases. However, the increased use of contract
employees in the workplace has left an opening for
additional recoveries, which I believe is
inappropriate except in the most egregious
circumstances.
Northwest Technical Services is a provider of
personnel to a large variety of companies in the State
of Alaska. It is our responsibility to assure
appropriate workers' compensation coverage is in
place. It should not also be our responsibility to
cover tort liability lawsuits in the event an employee
should seek action against a client based on a
workplace injury, as workers' compensation coverage
should extend up the line to the client company, as
well.
While there may rest a need in this law to establish
an exception for deliberate negligence action or
inaction in maintaining a safe workplace environment
by a company, this is a necessary bill and needs to
move forward. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the
members of the committee for your time.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if anyone else in Juneau wanted to testify on
SB 323. There was no response and he asked the will of the
committee.
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to pass SB 323 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
SENATOR FRENCH objected and said that he thought the last
comment from Mr. Miller pointed out that this bill would do
nothing to increase the amount of workers' compensation coverage
or expand the obligation to procure it and it takes away a
workers' right to sue a project owner for unsafe conditions. "I
think that's a bad exchange and for that reason I'm opposed to
that idea."
SENATOR SEEKINS countered:
It doesn't change anything that is there now, but if
you look at the last part, if they fail to do so...
and a contractor or subcontractor does not have the
required insurance, a claim would be covered under the
project owner's policy - extending the obligation for
paying workers' compensation benefits for an extended
worker to the project owner, contractors and his
subcontractors. That's the intent of the bill and I
think it gives significant benefit to those people who
are on the job.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Senators Gary Stevens,
Ralph Seekins and Chair Con Bunde voted yea; Senator Bettye
Davis and Hollis French voted nay; and SB 323 passed from
committee.
SB 350-4 DAM POOL JOINT ACTION AGENCY
CHAIR CON BUNDE announced SB 350 to be back before the
committee.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS moved to pass CSSB 350(L&C), version D,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked if it had another committee of
referral.
CHAIR BUNDE confirmed that it went to Finance. He asked for a
roll call vote. Senators Hollis French, Bettye Davis, Gary
Stevens, Ralph Seekins and Chair Con Bunde voted yea; and CSSB
350(L&C) moved from committee. There being no further business
to come before the committee, Chair Bunde adjourned the meeting
at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|