01/26/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| [the Recording Begins Here] | |
| HB81 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 81 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 26, 2005
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford (via teleconference)
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 46
"An Act permitting grants to certain regulated public utilities
for water quality enhancement projects and water supply and
wastewater systems."
- MOVED HB 46 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act establishing an administrative fine and procedure for
construction contractors in certain circumstances; increasing
the amount of a civil penalty for persons acting in the capacity
of contractors or home inspectors; modifying the elements of a
crime involving contractor registration and residential
contractors; and exempting the administrative hearings for
imposing an administrative fine on construction contractors from
the hearings conducted by the office of administrative hearings
in the Department of Administration."
- MOVED CSHB 81(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 35
"An Act extending the termination date of the State Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 46
SHORT TITLE: WATER/SEWER/WASTE GRANTS TO UTILITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HARRIS, COGHILL, ROKEBERG
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) L&C, FIN
01/26/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 81
SHORT TITLE: CONTRACTOR LICENSE ENFORCEMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ANDERSON
01/19/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/05 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
01/21/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/21/05 (H) Heard & Held
01/21/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/26/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
for Representative John Harris
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 46.
LORI BACKES, Special Assistant
Mayor
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 46.
BENJAMIN BROWN, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 46.
JIM STRANDBERG, Commissioner
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 46.
KARA MORIARTY, President,
Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 46.
JOHN BITNEY Lobbyist,
Alaska State Home Builders Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
GREY MITCHEL, Director,
Labor Standards and Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
DAVE OWENS, President
Mat-Su Homebuilders Association
Matanuska- Susinita, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 81.
ACTION NARRATIVE
[The beginning was not on the recording, but it was
reconstructed from the committee secretary's log notes]
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:25:18 PM (3:32:51)
Representatives Anderson, Kott, LeDoux, Lynn, Rokeberg, Crawford
via teleconference, and Guttenberg were all present at the call
to order.
HB 46-WATER/SEWER/WASTE GRANTS TO UTILITIES
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 46, "An Act permitting grants to certain
regulated public utilities for water quality enhancement
projects and water supply and wastewater systems."
TOM WRIGHT, staff for Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, announced, on behalf of Representative
Harris, that this is a relatively new bill which is limited to
privately owned companies that are economically regulated by the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA).
CHAIR ANDERSON said that Bonnie Williamson also supports the
bill.
LORI BACKES, Special Assistant to the Mayor, Fairbanks, said
that she was here today to support HB 46. She said that
privately held utilities do not have access to certain funds
that public utilities have. This bill levels the field by
making all funds available to all utility companies.
^[THE RECORDING BEGINS HERE]
BENJAMIN BROWN, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Environmental Conservation, described the program
as one primarily funded through state monies but there are some
smaller communities that are funded by federal funds. Only
municipalities are currently eligible right now. Over the last
10 years, 36 local governments have benefited from these grants.
There is a local match requirement that is scaled depending on
the population of the community because the smaller the
community, the less it has to contribute.
3:33:59 PM
MR. BROWN explained that the grants are awarded on a competitive
basis, taking into account public health and environmental
impact of the project, as well as community capacity and a few
other factors. It's a typical grant program.
MR. BROWN emphasized that are seven staff positions who run this
grant program and the same staff administer the winter loan
programs. This bill is a policy decision that the legislature
needs to make. Both the prior speakers demonstrated the fairness
of allowing communities who don't have don't have public
utilities to benefit the way communities like Anchorage do.
MR. BROWN commented that the only concern he had was that if the
bill is passed as written, a third position would have to be
added. If everyone who is eligible for the grant took the
necessary steps to be considered and subsequently apply for the
grant it would be too much work for the current staff. However,
the existing staff could be sufficient if the eligibility
requirements were modified to reduce the workload.
3:36:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Brown could specify the
amounts of the grants.
MR. BROWN answered absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this information could go back
three years.
MR. BROWN affirmed that he would be happy to make sure the
fiscal notes of the last three years are provided to the
committee members.
3:37:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG recalled that a few years ago,
legislation that allowed privately owned utilities to obtain
loans was passed. If the list of these companies was available
one could ascertain who was applying for grants as well.
MR BROWN affirmed that he would make this list part of the same
work request.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it is correct that there are
193 utilities that qualify. He then asked if there is a list
that could be provided.
MR. BROWN said Mr. Stranberg from RCA provided the list of
unregulated and regulated utilities.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that Mr. Brown mentioned a
modification of the bill that might affect the fiscal note, and
then went on the ask if he had any suggestions.
MR. BROWN explained that as long as there aren't an excessive
amount of people applying for the grants, then the fiscal note
will go down to zero.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the way the finances are
going, it probably will go to zero.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG observed that in the same fiscal note,
DEC expects to be administering six grants a year.
MR. BROWN stated that there is a numerical typographical error
in the fiscal note, and therefore a corrected version as it
comes out of this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, looking at page 2 of the bill, indicated
that she wanted to clarify that the private utilities being
economically regulated by RCA numbered at around 15 or 20. She
continued by asking why, according to Mr. Brown, there was 126
that would qualify for the grants.
3:40:50 PM
MR. BROWN answered by stating that there were two categories-
certificated and uncertificated. An entity that is not
certificated could become certificated and not be economically
regulated, but it could also request that it be economically
regulated and not be certified, thereby making it eligible for
this grant program. There are some hoops to jump through, but
there is nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day these
entities have to agree that they want to be regulated by the
RCA. The incentive for doing this is eligibility for these
grant funds.
CHAIR ANDERSON clarified that this total of 126 represents the
most that can possibly be eligible.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that there are private utility
companies out there that are not currently regulated by the RCA,
and theoretically, she asked, if they wanted to be eligible,
could they ask to be regulated by the RCA.
MR. BROWN clarified that such entities are home owner
associations and trailer parks and are not in the business of
selling utilities service to anyone who wants to buy it.
Although these entities have a set level of demands, they can
request to be regulated.
JIM STRANDBERG, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska in
Anchorage, said he would discuss very briefly, the number of
certificated and economically regulated utilities in the state
because this might help provide an understanding of this
particular situation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG highlighted that private utilities
currently certified are on a list that is in the file. He
mentioned that the Trillium Corporation of Wasilla is a
certified sewer and water utility and is associated with the
Settlers Bay Development of which his company is a customer and
not an owner of the Trillium Corporation. He ends by firmly
stating that there is not a conflict of interest.
MR. STRANDBERG, explained that the statute specifies that the
RCA is responsible for certificating, providing the certificate
for public convenience for all public utilities. The process
typically involves reviewing a utility as it evolves.
3:45:27 PM
MR. STRANDBERG continued by stating that the universe of
utilities is relatively large. The other tasks that the RCA
performs is for a subset of that large group. These groups
submit cost information to the RCA which sets a rate it can
charge for its services.
MR. STRANDBERG noted that this bill specifies that any economic
activity that is regulated by the RCA, is eligible for the
grants.
MR. STRANDBERG stated that although the RCA certifies a large
number of utilities, currently, it only economically regulates a
few utilities in the state. This occurs when the RCA perceives
that the utility has become a monopoly.
3:47:34 PM
MR. STRANDBERG said that there were a number of numbers
mentioned. In the fiscal note, there were 193 non-municipal
utilities that could be eligible for these grants. The question,
he said, is how many of them would actually come in for the
grants. He then went on to say that the RCA has a zero fiscal
note on this bill mainly due to the fact that many of these
utilities would come under economic regulation at a later date.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG mentioned page 2 on the fiscal note
provided by RCA where the witness spoke referenced reduced
regulation programs, and asked for an expansion of the programs
description. When this is implemented, some utility groups may
want to be regulated at a higher level, he surmised. He ended by
asking Mr. Strandberg if he could talk about this and describe
what is being done with the reduced regulation program.
MR. STRANDBERG answered that the RCA has been working for years
on this part of the RCA's operation, which began, he said, with
an audit action item in 2000 that required us to be more active
in utilities. Since that time, the RCA has provided alternative
certification programs for small utilities. The RCA is bringing
more utilities under this provisional certification program.
MR. STRANDBERG stated that additionally, he said that RCA
currently has an open regulation docket and an active
stakeholder working group to change the way that RCA
economically regulate to make it more affordable and more
effective.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what the regulation break up
point is.
MR. STRANDBERG stated that is to be determined. Currently RCA
have assembled stake holders and are awaiting their analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, referring back to Representative
Guttenberg's statement, stated that when this process is
completed, there is a different method of regulating smaller
utilities which are less of a burden. He ends by asking if this
is the objective.
MR. STRANDBERG replied yes and announced that the goal of his
agency was to lessen the cost of regulation and make it more
effective. He then stated that whatever the rule is that the RCA
develops will represent full economic regulation but a different
set of rules will be configured for smaller utilities.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this included all the class A,
B, and C water utilities.
MR. STRANDBERG announced that his group spent lot of time on
this indulgence and all known small utilities were included.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG took this further by asking whether they
regulate both the A and B classes.
MR. STRANDBERG stated that this includes any utilities that
provides service to 10 or more customers.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there are still three different
categories of water utilities still.
MR. STRANDBERG answered that the Department of Environmental
Conservation has this nomenclature and this has more to do with
water quality. The RCA has a different set of definitions under
which it operates.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if private utilities are regulated
if they are monopolies in their area.
MR. STRANDBERG stated this is correct.
3:55:26 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how the RCA handles
grants and how this legislation affects rate setting.
MR. STRANDBERG answered that the RCA has regulatory tools, and
therefore it has the ability to not allow a privately owned
utility to enrich its shareholders from the provision of an
infrastructure grant like this. The utility cannot earn a return
on the grant and it cannot have the customer pay back the money
gained by the grant contribution.
KARA MORIARTY, President, Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce,
announced her support for HB 46 and the idea that all utilities
should be on the same level playing field. Currently the only
utilities that are eligible for these grants are public owned
utilities. The grants are primarily used for infrastructure
development and upgrades. She noted that the shareholders cannot
receive returns on investments. The ratepayers and citizens are
the only ones who can receive benefits from the grants.
MS. MORIARTY then went on to say that all utilities in
Fairbanks, Alaska are either privately owned or are a
cooperative. She continued by stating that businesses and
residents where are at a disadvantage compared to other Alaskan
residents. The cost of doing business, she said, is great in
Fairbanks. The problem of connection to major utility lines
hampers economical development, even downtown near the city
center. She concluded by reiterating that private and
cooperative utilities should have access to the grants.
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining that no one else wanted to
testify, closed public testimony.
4:01:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report HB 46 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 81-CONTRACTOR LICENSE ENFORCEMENT
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act establishing an administrative
fine and procedure for construction contractors in certain
circumstances; increasing the amount of a civil penalty for
persons acting in the capacity of contractors or home
inspectors; modifying the elements of a crime involving
contractor registration and residential contractors; and
exempting the administrative hearings for imposing an
administrative fine on construction contractors from the
hearings conducted by the office of administrative hearings in
the Department of Administration."
CHAIR ANDERSON recalled that at a prior hearing, there was a
suggestion to delete sections referring to home inspectors. This
is not going to happen because it would create a title change.
However, he noted that there is an amendment that he would like
to have explained.
JOHN BITNEY, Lobbyist, Alaska State Home Builders Association
(ASHBA), said that ASHBA is introducing a conceptual amendment,
which he said was located on page 5, line 2 of [Version Y]. The
language on this page is in response to the existing language in
owner/builder language in statute.
MR. BITNEY explained that the existing statutes broadly exempts
owner/builders from building a single family multiplex every
year. The time limit is very ill defined. He recalled that the
testimony talked about each member of a family running a
contract business and building several buildings, not to live
in, but for resale value. The aforementioned act, he said,
violated the law.
CHAIR ANDERSON provided clarity by stating that a family has
several children who each build homes and they are able to do
this under the stipulation of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt CSHB 81,
Version 24-LSO144\Y, Mischel, 1/26/05, as the working document.
There being no objection, Version Y was before the committee.
4:07:31 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if Mr. Bitney could briefly describe each
section of Version Y.
MR. BITNEY explained that in Version Y, Section 1 addresses the
enforcement statutes. Section 2 is the heart of the bill, since
it deals with the fines. Section 3 takes the existing penalty
and increases it to the new penalty phase being added. Section
4 defines the violation and Section 5 is the long list of
exemptions. Section 6, he said, is the conforming section.
MR. BITNEY continued by stating that Sections 7 and 8 are
transitional sections that ensure this is not retroactive.
DAVE OWENS, Representative, Mat-Su Homebuilders Association,
Matanuska- Susinita, answered yes and that he gives full support
of this bill and agree with the previous speaker, Mr. Bitney.
4:11:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether there is a quantifiable
number of fines or complaints that would illustrate that there
is a problem.
GREY MITCHEL, Division Director, Labor Standards and Safety,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, answered that the
number of violations range from 130 to 150. There have been 85
violations in this fiscal year so far.
CHAIR ANDERSON clarified that Mr. Mitchel's numbers refer to
people who are not authorized or licensed to operate as a
contractor but are doing so.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the level of the current
sanction.
MR. MITCHEL stated that the current sanction is a criminal
penalty, a misdemeanor. Therefore, the department is required
to take the case to the district attorney. Since these are low-
level cases for the DA, it is difficult to pursue these cases.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if it is a class B misdemeanor.
MR. MITCHEL agreed and said that this was correct: "I think
that the current criminal citation is being listed in section 4
of the bill as it is in statute now".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised then that the goal is to have
the civil penalties and administrative fines as a tool, rather
than going through a criminal prosecution.
MR. MITCHEL agreed and said this was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG chortled that an offender could
ostensibly receive a injunction, get a civil penalty,
administratively fine him, and get a class B misdemeanor case.
He then asked if there is a conflict of laws here.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed that there may be a problem with the
bill if it allows three avenues of prosecution to exist. He
asked Mr. Mitchel to produce a scenario in which a violation
could be detected and no fine imposed. Ostensibly, the
inspector does not have to give a fine and the fine could be
anything between $1 and $1,000. He pointed out that there is a
lot of wiggle room here.
MR. MITCHEL posed a situation in which someone has been caught
with an expired license. In such a situation the DLWD would
issue a civil fine, especially if the individual comes in and
shows that he has been reissued a current license and has
current bonding. The department, in such a case wouldn't pursue
a criminal prosecution.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT indicated that it sounded like one could be
guilty of noncompliance and not be punished. He then suggested
that the level of the fine could be adjusted in cases such as
these. He further stated that there is no knowledge of the
offender's intention and thus there is the possibility that
there could be felonious intent.
CHAIR ANDERSON said that it always a dilemma.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Section 5, the exemptions
section, paragraph 12, and asked how the figure of three years
was determined.
4:18:14 PM
JOHN BITNEY, Lobbyist, Alaska Home Builders Association,
explained that the idea to specify a bright line level amount
for enforcement. The discussions thus far have agreed upon the
minimum of two years and a maximum of three years. The idea was
that it had to be more than one year. This enabled the
department to truly determine that it was an owner/builder
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to when enforcement action
would occur enforcement take place. She offered an example of a
person building a home and two years later selling the same
home. She then asked if this is when the department got
involved.
CHAIR ANDERSON offered that the department would be involved
when there had been a violation detected.
MR. BITNEY related his understanding of the applicability and
that this would be applied not when one sells the home, but when
one begins to act like a general contractor for the construction
of the next new home, not when the old home is sold.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that Representative LeDoux was actually
trying to ask what would happen if a owner/builder sold the home
after two years, which would be in violation of the three-year
occupancy requirement.
4:22:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the question from
Representative LeDoux is germane in terms of the slight
ambiguity that is created by inserting this clause into the
document. He stated that we have a three-year standard by
adopting the CS, but we still retain a one-year standard within
the same sentence. He pointed out that within the same sentence
there are three different tests of the bill's legitimacy.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that the recommendation could be to tweak
page 5, line 6, so that it is in parity with page 5, beginning
of Section 12, lines 2-3.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that it is a matter of
drafting.
4:23:22 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON asserted that he wants this clean and
unambiguous.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that if an owner/builder
builds something, occupies it, and then builds something else,
this legislation disallows the sale of the prior property. He
asserted that this constrains trade.
CHAIR ANDERSON declared that the only difficulty he has with
this idea is the possibility of having a commercial building
versus a home and reconciling the two.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG affirmed that the owner/builder can
reside in both concurrently. The owner/builder would have to
show external evidence for his occupancy in one or both
residencies.
CHAIR ANDERSON supposed there was the possibility of ambiguity.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt
Conceptual Amendment [1 inserting language] such that 'you can
only privately build a house every three years' be added.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that this suggested language would be
added to page 5, lines 2-7, subsection 12.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the three consecutive
calendar years could be interpreted as 14 months or is the
intent to have 36 months.
4:26:10 PM
MR. BITNEY said he thought that either way it's saying the same
thing.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that Legislative Legal and Research
Services could review it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the rationale behind
selecting three consecutive years.
CHAIR ANDERSON related that the legislative intent of the bill
is to discourage builders from acting like a private homebuilder
in order to fall undetected within this requirement. The intent
is to keep them from building homes and not occupying them. It
is also discourages the practice of family building activities
which also circumvents the core of the bill. Three years is an
arbitrary number and has no judicial principal behind it, but is
long enough to show proof of residency and intentions to build
and occupy.
MR. BITNEY agreed that three years is long enough to determine
occupancy, which is the term being used by his organization
since it really gets to the heart of the matter, and provides a
brighter line on which to judge cases.
4:28:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX posed a situation in which someone builds
his own home, and then sells it after two years, and then
doesn't build another house. She asked if that owner/builder
would be liable if he held off on building another house right
away.
CHAIR ANDERSON reiterated that the owner must occupy the
residence for three consecutive years. Once construction is
completed, the owner/builder must move in and reside there for
three years, or the contractor licensure is violated.
MR. BITNEY clarified that the language speaks to when the
owner/builder can start construction on the next new home.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern in a situation in which
someone builds a home and for some reason he moves someplace
else. Theoretically, such an individual would be in violation
of the law. She asked if such a person could be prosecuted.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG reiterated that the intent is not to
stop the owner/builders who build one home every four to five
years. The legislation attempts to catch those people that are
trying to stay under the radar.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that the test could be whether
the owner/builder is the bona fide owner/occupant.
4:33:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG went on to say that the committee could
even talk about restricting family members. The legislation
could be worded in such a way that would prohibit various
members of a family from qualifying.
CHAIR ANDERSON said that although he liked what Representative
Rokeberg suggested about making it more definitive in terms of
the differences, but that expands the bill enough in Conceptual
Amendment 1, that it has become a concern. He suggested that
the legislation as amended by and with the stated legislative
intent be moved.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern regarding whether the
previous motion provided the drafter with enough flexibility.
Therefore, Representative Rokeberg withdrew Conceptual Amendment
1. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt
Conceptual Amendment 2, as follows:
The number of building units will be consistent with
any length of prohibition and additionally consider
the builder and his bona fide use of the property. If
the person who builds the building and the person is a
bona fide user of the building there will be no three-
year restriction.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued by stating that there cannot
be restrictions on the movement and mobility of people. We need
another criteria which is a bona fide residency and the
restriction of numbers of people within a family that would
qualify for building.
MR. BITNEY suggested that the language on page 5, lines 2-3,
which read, 'occupies the property after construction for not
less than two consecutive years', would be better within the
limitation on page 5, line 6. This is opposed to having it
placed at the beginning of the paragraph. This is more
contextual to the idea trying to be conveyed.
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that there was no objection to Conceptual
Amendment 2. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 81, Version 24-
LSO144\Y, Mischel, 1/26/05, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 81(L&C) was reported from 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
4:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|