Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/06/2002 05:15 PM Senate RES
| 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 RESOURCES COMMITTEE
May 6, 2002
5:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson, Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Vice Chair
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 302(FIN)
"An Act establishing the Alaska Gas Corporation, a public
corporation, and providing for its structure, management,
responsibilities, and operation, and requiring the development of
a project plan to evaluate whether construction and operation of
a natural gas transmission pipeline project by the corporation is
feasible."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 382(FIN)
"An Act relating to the evaluation and cleanup of sites where
certain controlled substances may have been manufactured or
stored; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SCS CSHB 382(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 474(CRA) am
"An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for
surface transportation affecting the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife
Refuge."
MOVED SCS CSHB 474(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 302 - See Resources minutes dated 4/29/02.
HB 382 - See Resources minutes dated 4/29/02.
HB 474 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Jim Whitaker
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 302.
Representative Gretchen Guess
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 382.
Ms. Laura Achee
Staff to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 474 for the sponsor.
Mr. Dick Bishop
Alaska Outdoor Council
1555 Gus's Grind
Fairbanks AK 99601
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 474.
Mr. Dennis Poshard, Legislative Liaison
Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities
3132 Channel Dr.
Juneau, AK 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 474.
Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 474.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-27, SIDE A
Number 001
CSHB 302-ALASKA GAS CORPORATION
CHAIRMAN JOHN TORGERSON called the Senate Resources Committee
meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. and announced CSHB 302(FIN) to be
up for consideration. He said that he intended to take testimony
on the bill today but would hold it in committee since the
committee would be making a policy call.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM WHITAKER, sponsor of HB 302, said the bill
establishes the Alaska Gas Corporation. The intent of the
legislation is to keep a range of options available to the state
with regard to the eventual taking of natural gas to market. The
private sector is interested in that project but the sincerity of
that effort has been questioned from time to time. He believes
it would be advantageous for the state to keep this option viable
and to progress it.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked Representative Whitaker if he intends to
replace the initiative with this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said it is not his intent to use this
bill to replace the initiative. That subject is under the purview
of the Lieutenant Governor. He introduced this bill several
months prior to the initiative. However, once the initiative was
filed, he asked for a legal opinion about whether the bill and
initiative are substantially similar. According to the legal
opinion, they are, so whether or not it replaces the initiative
would be the Lieutenant Governor's call. He said he has not
contacted her about the matter.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON questioned why there is no fiscal note from
the Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA) because the Commission would
be set up by the Legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said it would, but assuming the Joint
Committee on Natural Gas Pipelines remains viable, it can be
argued that there would be no attendant fiscal note. However,
keeping that committee in place for this specific purpose would
require a fiscal note from LAA.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said that, in general, all of the Joint
Committee on Natural Gas Pipelines hired experts will be finished
at the end of session. He said the committee might need to take a
different direction and have engineering staff on board for this
proposal.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON told members that Representative Whitaker has
submitted an amendment to extend the Joint Committee on Natural
Gas Pipelines until January 31, 2004.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if the Alaska Gas Corporation is analogous
to anything that exists today.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER replied an analogy could be made to the
existing port authority, although that is a rough one, since the
subject matter is the only similarity. He said a better analogy
is to the operations of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.
The Corporation functions in an ownership role. He did not
envision the maintenance, operation, building, and engineering
functions being attendant to state functions. He envisioned them
as private sector functions under contract to the Alaska Gas
Corporation.
SENATOR WILKEN asked how it would differ from the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC).
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER replied that ARRC is far beyond what he
would envision. The ARRC has been subject to criticism for being
somewhat cumbersome, bureaucratic and inefficient. Those
criticisms may have merit. On the other hand, the Permanent Fund
Corporation's ownership role provides a much more efficient
model.
SENATOR WILKEN asked him to explain why a copy of the Petrie
Parkman Report is in members' packets and what it means in
relation to the sentence on page 2.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER replied that he found the report
interesting for a number of reasons. Different participants wrote
it in sections. Those sections written by the Administration
seemed to be quite negative with regard to state ownership, but
he came to the conclusion that state ownership would result in a
substantial return to the state, the magnitude of which is
indeterminate. He also concluded that an 8 to 18% reduction in
tariff is possible, if not probable, given state ownership and
its ability to provide for financing as well as tax relief
relative to the determination of the tariff.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked when the bill was filed.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said it was filed at the beginning of the
first session of this legislature. He extrapolated that the
reason it is moving now is because it is being viewed as the
lesser of two evils, meaning it and the initiative.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how it differs from SB 221.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER replied that he hadn't read that bill.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if the bill still called for design,
construction, operating and maintenance to be vested within the
powers of the corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER replied that is correct.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked Commissioner Condon, Department of
Revenue, if he had any comments.
COMMISSIONER CONDON indicated that he would answer questions.
[There were none.]
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON thanked Representative Whitaker and held CSHB
302(FIN) in committee.
CSHB 382(FIN)-CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced CSHB 382(FIN) to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt Amendment 1, which reads as
follows.
22-LS1105\S.2
Lauterbach
1/10/03
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 382( ), Draft Version "S"
Page 2, line 4, following "made.":
Insert "The owner of the property may appeal the
determination to the superior court for review of whether the
determination was made in compliance with this subsection. In
the appeal, the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the determination was made in compliance with this
subsection is on the law enforcement agency that employed the
officer who made the determination."
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "by certified mail, return receipt requested,"
Insert "given in a manner that is consistent with the rules
of civil procedure for the service of process in a civil action
in this state"
Page 5, line 29:
Delete "or"
Page 6, line 2, following "met":
Insert "; or
(3) a court has held that the determination that
the property was an illegal drug manufacturing site was not
made in compliance with AS 46.03.500(a)"
Page 6, line 30:
Delete "a reasonably clear possibility"
Insert "reasonable cause to suspect the existence"
Page 7, line 3:
Delete "occurs"
Insert "has occurred"
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON objected to the motion for the purpose of
hearing an explanation.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS, sponsor of HB 382, said Amendment 1 makes
her bill a much better one. The first part of the amendment sets
up an appeal process available to the residential owner if a drug
lab is determined to be an illegal lab site. It also makes the
notification process consistent with the civil procedure for
service so that a person can also be physically served with
certified mail. Language on page 6, line 2, states that the
property can be fit for use if the court determines that it was
not an illegal lab site. Finally, it changes the phrase, "a
reasonably clear possibility," which is language used in another
state, to "reasonable cause to suspect," a phrase used in this
state.
SENATOR TAYLOR called for the question. There were no further
objections and Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON referred to language on page 3, lines 16 and
17, "occupy the property at any time after the fourth day
following the day that the property was posted" and asked if
committee members were comfortable with the four day provision.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS indicated that was okay.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained that the time frame was shorter in some
states and longer in others.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to report SCS CSHB 382(RES) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
CSHB 474(CRA)am-ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced CSHB 474(CRA)am to be up for
consideration.
MS. LAURA ACHEE, staff to Representative Joe Green, said in 1971
the Alaska State Legislature created the Potter Point State Game
Refuge in an area along the southwest coastline of the
Municipality of Anchorage. She offered:
In 1988 the legislature expanded it to form the
Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. This particular
piece of land is important because in Cook Inlet, as
the ice pack moves in and out, it scours the shoreline
and roughs up the habitat or the areas where there
would be habitat in the wintertime as it moves. Fire
Island creates a natural break that keeps that ice from
scouring this section of shoreline so it is unique in
the section of Cook Inlet. It provides habitat for a
lot of shorebirds that otherwise wouldn't have a place
to build nests in the area. A lot of these birds move
on to other parts of the state. Also, there's a lot of
moose, lynx, coyotes and other wildlife that use this
section of land.
The reason that this has all come about is because the
Anchorage Coastal Trail, which is very popular in
Anchorage, is in the process of being extended and,
during the extension process, a lot of the constituents
in South Anchorage felt very disenfranchised. They felt
like their voice wasn't heard; they felt like a lot of
the reasons they had for the trail not going through
the Refuge were ignored. Every time proposed routes
would come out, the routes that they suggested wouldn't
be on the maps, only the routes that go along the
coastline. To exacerbate the problem, the Governor of
our state, for whom the first section of the trail is
named, has stated a preference that he really wanted
the trail to go along the coastline. The Department of
Transportation was following along with that. ADF&G was
objecting and after a while the fish and game
biologists who were doing the objections suddenly
weren't heard from any more. They weren't coming back
and saying they approved of the trail, but we just
weren't hearing anything from them anymore and they
weren't willing to speak to us anymore.
MS. ACHEE said that a lot of folks have suggested that this is a
local issue that should be solved at the Anchorage level and the
state shouldn't be involved. But she thinks there are a few
reasons the state should be involved. One is that the oversight
of this project has been removed from the Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA) and is strictly at the state level and, because
the legislature created this Refuge, it seems that ultimately it
should be allowed to have the final say in how it's managed. It
also seems like the public process has broken down. This bill
simply says that if there are any new rights-of-way or easements
through the refuge, the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOTPF) must notify the legislature by February 1. The
legislature would then have 45 days to respond before DOTPF would
take the next step to create or acquire that easement or right-
of-way.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he found some of the language confusing,
especially the language on the 45-day notice. He asked if it says
the railroad right-of-way, realignment and utility corridor is
okay, but everything else has to come back [to the legislature].
MS. ACHEE replied that those rights-of-way existed before the
refuge was created.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if DOTPF must wait to take action until
45 days have passed beyond February 1.
MS. ACHEE said that is correct.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked what will happen if the Legislature
responds in opposition.
MS. ACHEE said she imagines the Legislature would have the
opportunity to provide direction to DOTPF.
MR. DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated support for
CSHB 474(CRA)am because it will provide some oversight in the
development of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. The trail's
integrity is important from the standpoint of its biological
systems and the existing uses of the trail. He added:
It's kind of unique in that it provides for hunting and
viewing and shooting through the Rabbit Creek Rifle
Range. That mutually satisfactory arrangement has
coexisted for going on almost 30 years now. The various
alternatives that have been proposed for the
development of the trail access in that area has raised
serious questions about whether that would persist if a
new cohort of recreationists on a developed path would
be in conflict with those uses and also raise some
potential questions about the integrity of the swamp,
itself. And I have to admit I have a personal bias in
favor of swamps. You can take that into account there.
They're great places.
I think it's really appropriate because state refuges
in general are a creature of the legislative expression
of its oversight on the management of natural resources
in the state for the public's interest, the so-called
public trust issue. I think it's very appropriate for
the legislature to have the opportunity for oversight
on situations like this where there may be significant
changes proposed in a refuge that could impact very
satisfactory, very popular existing uses…
MR. DENNIS POSHARD, legislative liaison, DOTPF, gave the
committee a map of the proposed routes and said:
The Department opposes this legislation for a couple of
reasons. First, we don't believe it's necessary. We are
actively following a federally mandated environmental
process that is quite time consuming and requires a
substantial amount of public involvement. In fact,
tonight we're unable to have the two leaders from the
Department of Fish and Game and Department of
Transportation here because there is a public meeting
going on in Anchorage as we speak but we don't believe
that this is necessary. We think that there's an active
process in place on this particular project, and the
process is working.
Secondly, we believe that the establishment of the
refuge, giving the authority to manage the refuge and
access into the refuge to Fish and Game was adequate
and we think they're doing a good job with that
mandate. I think that much of testimony that you heard
is regarding specific trail routes. You'll notice that
there's no orange route on the map. That was the one
that was most contentious. It was the most coastal
route and it was one that Fish and Game just flat out
said they would not permit. So, we have removed it from
the list of alternatives that are going to be forwarded
in a draft environmental impact statement. We have
added a future route at the request of the Department
of Fish and Game and that will be one of the
alternatives that will be forwarded in the draft
environmental impact statement. And that's out of
direct response to the agency responsible for managing
the refuge. It's also out of response to listening to
the public and their concerns also.
Finally, I would say again, we don't believe that this
is a necessary step. I think our biggest concern is if
we do choose a route that requires us to go through the
refuge and we have to come back to the legislature for
your approval and the legislature should choose to not
approve that particular route, that's going to be quite
a difficult challenge, because we would come to you at
the end of the federal environmental process when
there's been a preferred alternative selected that the
feds have bought off on and to go back then and change
the route is one that I don't know that they would
participate in in funding an alternative route at that
point. And that's something that is of concern to the
department also. But we certainly have heard the
concerns of the sponsor and of folks who have testified
in the past, and we're trying very hard to take those
into account in the process. With that, Mr. Chairman,
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said DOTPF's solution is to do nothing and
leave the law as it stands. However, the sponsor's staff said
there appears to be a problem with how this has been handled in
the past. Apparently, DOTPF is not doing a good job of
responding. He asked, "So, what are we supposed to do with this?"
MR. POSHARD responded that this has been a very difficult project
in that it's very contentious. A lot of vocal people support
various routes of the trail. Some are upset with DOTPF for
removing the orange route (the most coastal) as an alternative.
He said:
I believe that the process is working and that the
outcome of the process is going to be a route that a
majority of the people can support and a route that is
ultimately the best solution for that trail segment.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked, "Why in the world are we wasting the
legislature's time on what I think should be an Anchorage problem
conducted by their planning and zoning?" He said the Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) spends $40 million
of federal road money in Anchorage every year yet legislation is
required to build a bike path.
MR. POSHARD said this is an AMATS project funded through the
Trails and Recreation Access for Alaska (TRAAK) program. The
state has expertise in dealing with the federal environmental
process that the City of Anchorage doesn't have, "especially
when it became part of the merge process and requires concurrence
from all of the various resource agencies, both federal and
state. That's why we agreed to take the lead on the project."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, sponsor of HB 474, said the coastal trail
has been an on-going project for over two years. When it began,
the Governor said it should be a city project but the response
from Anchorage was less than desirable. The Governor then decided
it should be a state project. Representative Green said his
concern is that he's hearing that the orange trail that runs
through the middle of the habitat area has been withdrawn because
ever since Chip Dennerlein has been involved, he realized they
would not have been able to permit that trail anyway. He added:
But it took them two years and another threat to decide
that. My concern is that unless we keep their feet to
the fire, it could revert back. Right now the
alternative route, the fuscia route, looks good. There
are three points of concern, but the fuscia route looks
good. The fuscia route could have been done two years
ago. And no way no how would they consider that. So,
I'm concerned that unless we keep this pressure on, it
could drop back.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if they could insert a reference to some
sort of interaction with the MOA instead of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied it is the refuge that he is
concerned about because that is where the habitat is. It's not
the city part.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said they have coastal zone management powers.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out they don't have it in the state
area and that's the area of the biggest concern.
MR. POSHARD said he believes it is up to the state to manage the
state wildlife refuge. State law specifically tasks the
Department of Fish and Game to manage this particular refuge.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he sort of agrees with Senator Taylor's
concern about the legislature being involved in a local issue. He
asked if there is a way to make it a local issue and suggested
language that would prevent DOTPF from going forward with a route
without approval by the MOA.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he wasn't sure if that would even be
necessary because if they stay with the fuscia route, it is
outside of the refuge and the habitat area.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked Mr. Poshard why DOTPF objects to the
bill if the route is outside of the refuge now.
MR. POSHARD replied that there are a few sections where the
fuscia route juts into the coast. In those sections, the route
could go around the wildlife refuge or cut across it. Experts say
those particular sections are not critical habitat areas. Being
able to cross a couple of those segments would be very helpful in
terms of bridge approaches that are going to have to go across
Campbell Creek and a couple of other areas. ADF&G has indicated
that it would be able to cross the refuge in "small, small
parcels."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the legislature would probably have no
problem with that.
6:00 p.m.
SENATOR ELTON told members that a process is in place to manage
the Mendenhall Wetlands wildlife refuge in Juneau. A local board
manages for competing uses among duck hunters, hikers, wildlife
viewers, and others. The management of those uses would have been
complicated if, in fact, there was a trigger mechanism by which
any aggrieved party could have come to the legislature and say it
didn't like a decision. He stated, "That's what worries me about
this bill. We could have people who liked the orange route coming
back in and asking the legislature to review."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the legislature would be involved only
in the route selection, not the management. If the fuscia route
is selected, there will be no problem but if it goes back to the
orange route, there will be a major problem because it goes right
through the critical habitat area. That is the major issue.
SENATOR ELTON said this bill provides an avenue for an advocate
of the orange route to make the selection process a legislative
issue.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON suggested that they "bless the fuscia route in
this bill and [have] any deviations from it come back to the
legislature."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he has two concerns: one is the outfall
of Campbell Creek, and the route that comes back to the trail
from inland. Users will be a prohibited from being able to get
off the route at the dam. The concern is that dogs will run off
of the trail and into the private lake area or be able to get
into the critical habitat area. He said, "If the fuscia route
stays where it is and there is this protection at the dam, then I
don't think it is a problem."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said that could be put in there, too.
MR. POSHARD responded that would pose a problem for DOTPF because
according to the federal environmental process, NEPA, DOTPF is
supposed to be weighing the alternatives with equal merit. If the
legislature blesses a particular route, that could be viewed as
biasing the study.
TAPE 02-27, SIDE B
SENATOR TAYLOR said he agrees with Mr. Poshard that this process
should be continued into the future and added:
I really believe that many of us in the state should
have direct input on the Anchorage AMATS process and we
should assist those people in figuring out how to spend
that $40 million and, if we can, continue to keep
needless studies and plans rolling. I can't imagine a
single new road or trail ever being built in Anchorage
as long as we do this. That would probably be fine and
leave more money in the DOT budget and we might
actually get a road paved in my district. This seems
like an excellent process and I didn't realize how
enthused I was about it until you explained it all to
me.
SENATOR STEVENS asked what the subject of tonight's hearing will
be.
MR. POSHARD replied that it will be an unveiling of the
alternatives that are going to be forwarded in the draft
environmental impact statement and public comment will be taken.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how long the fuscia plan has been available
for public inspection.
MR. POSHARD replied that he thought the fuscia plan had been out
in written form for a couple of months; in map form - about three
or four weeks.
SENATOR STEVENS asked how long the other routes had been
considered.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied the orange and the red routes had
been considered for 2 to 3 years.
MR. POSHARD said there is still quite a bit of time left in the
process. They are at the point of releasing the alternatives for
the draft environmental impact statement, which will be published
and then public comment will be taken. It should be completed by
late summer.
SENATOR STEVENS asked when the actual site will be selected.
MR. POSHARD answered some time next fall or winter.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON suggested letting DOTPF go ahead with its
planning process and then bring the site selection back to the
legislature for approval before money is expended.
SENATOR STEVENS asked Representative Green, "What's your pulse on
this fuscia route?"
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied that he likes it but he is concerned
about the Campbell Creek dam and the ability to come from the
interior back to the coast without going through private property
and the danger of putting a trail next to the railroad tracks.
The embankment is very steep and it would be hard to put a trail
in there. DOTPF suggested using retaining walls and putting in a
chain link fence to keep users off of the tracks.
SENATOR STEVENS asked for a description of the approval process
on the first portion of the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail.
MR. POSHARD replied that he wasn't here when that occurred
approximately 15 years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that it makes sense that it was done by
the MOA since the trail was within the city limits. The
difference is it didn't include the habitat area.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if Earthquake Park is a city park.
MR. POSHARD replied it is.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked what DOTPF is spending on this.
MR. POSHARD replied that DOTPF has spent $2 to $2.5 million on
the environmental document. Completion of the trail is estimated
to cost $16 million to $50 million, depending on the route.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if they could put the money into roads
instead and not build the trail.
MR. POSHARD said it is up to the AMATS policy committee to decide
whether to do it or not.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to delete, on page 2, line 1, "45 days
after the agency has submitted notice of the proposed action to
the legislature; the notice must be submitted to" and to delete
on line 3 "before February 1". [Amendment 1] It would then read:
...a state agency may not take final action to acquire
or create a right-of-way or other easement for surface
transportation within the refuge until approved by the
legislature during the regular legislative session.
MR. POSHARD said DOTPF would still object, because it doesn't
think it's necessary to bring the trail routing back to the
legislature for approval. DOTPF doesn't do that with other
projects and other wildlife refuges in the state don't have the
same standard.
SENATOR ELTON said he reads Amendment 1 to mean that instead of
leaving it to the legislature's discretion about whether or not
to take it up, legislative approval would be required on an AMATS
project. He thought that is a significant breach in the concept
of AMATS and said he would be interested in knowing the MOA's
reaction to this kind of legislative oversight on its project.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the Municipality has taken a position on
this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it has not.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if there were any objections to
Amendment 1.
SENATOR ELTON objected.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked for a roll call vote. SENATORS TAYLOR,
STEVENS, HALFORD, WILKEN and TORGERSON voted yes; SENATOR ELTON
voted no.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SCS CSHB 474(RES) out of committee
with individual recommendations.
SENATOR ELTON objected.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked for a roll call vote. SENATORS TAYLOR,
STEVENS, HALFORD, WILKEN and TORGERSON voted yes: SENATOR ELTON
voted no, therefore SCS CSHB 474(RES) moved from committee.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON adjourned the meeting at 6:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|