|
.jpg) FLORIDA EAST COAST CHAPTER
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Florida A.G.C. Council, Inc.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
2009 Regular Session of the Florida Legislature
March 14, 2009
Two weeks down and eight to go! One bright spot during this past week here in Tallahassee was movement on our AGC-backed bill to “fix” the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Murray case and restore caps on the attorney’s fees of workers’ compensation claimants. More on this bill appears below.
On a darker note, however, the state’s Revenue Estimating Conference met yesterday and updated its forecast of collections in Florida’s General Revenue Fund. Revenue from the sales tax, documentary stamp tax, and state corporate income tax flow into the General Revenue Fund and finance much of state government operations. Since weakness in the state, national, and world economies has deepened over the past few months, the Revenue Estimating Conference reduced its estimate of General Revenue collections for the current state fiscal year by $1.1 billion. For Fiscal Year 2009-10, expected state revenues were reduced by $2.3 billion.
Estimated revenue collections for the current state fiscal year (FY 2008-09) are now less than the receipts for the previous state fiscal year (FY 2007-08) by $3.2 billion or 13.1%. The Fiscal Year 2009-10 forecast has decreased by 4.5% over the Fiscal Year 2008-09 estimate, which would result in the fourth consecutive year of real declines in state revenue. Revenue collections are not anticipated to exceed the Fiscal Year 2005-06 level within the three-year forecast horizon. Amy Baker, coordinator of the Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research, said Florida’s economy won’t improve much until 2011.
Many lawmakers questioned the validity of Governor Crist’s budget proposal, issued last month, suggesting that it might be based on overly optimistic revenue numbers. Clearly, the Governor’s optimism was misplaced. While it may be possible to plug the current year’s deficit with federal stimulus dollars, a growing number of Republicans are saying that they might not be able to fully plug next year's deficit with these funds, as Crist proposed. Even with federal stimulus money, next year's budget deficit could run as high as $3 billion, leading both Republicans and Democrats to talk about increasing taxes on everything from cigarettes to gambling. All this raises the specter that the Legislature might not be able to reach a budget deal by its scheduled May 1 adjournment, possibly leading them to reconvene later in the summer when it becomes clearer just how much federal stimulus money will be available.
Against this backdrop, literally thousands of bills have been filed for consideration by the 2009 Florida Legislature, many of which will have an impact on the construction industry. Outlined below are some of the major bills and issues on which AGC is pursuing the interests of Florida’s general contractors in Tallahassee.
CORPORATE INCOME TAX FIX STATUS: PASSED
SB 1112 – Sen. Thad Altman (R – Melbourne) AGC POSITION: SUPPORT
HB 459 – Rep. Dean Cannon (R – Winter Park)
Florida imposes a 5.5% tax on the taxable income of corporations doing business in Florida. The determination of taxable income begins with the taxable income used for federal income tax purposes. This means that a corporation paying taxes in Florida receives the same benefits from deductions allowed in determining its federal taxable income.
Florida maintains this relationship by each year adopting the Federal Internal Revenue Code as it exists on January 1 of the year. By doing this, Florida adopts any changes that were made in the previous year to the determination of federal taxable income. The bill adopting the federal code is referred to as the “piggyback bill.”
In 2008, due to budgetary constraints, the Legislature adopted the federal tax code in HB 5065, except for two provisions dealing with 50% bonus depreciation and an increased first-year expensing amount. To nullify the effect of those provisions, the bill provided an “add-back” to a corporation’s Florida taxable income equal to the amount deducted from the federal tax return because of those two provisions.
Because of the interaction of the federal tax code with the Florida tax code, the adopted method placed a taxpayer choosing to take advantage of the federal provisions in a worse position for Florida tax purposes than it would have been had it not taken advantage of the federal provisions.
This bill replaces the statutory changes made last year with a new procedure to account for bonus depreciation and additional expensing in a way that will largely correct the negative financial effects of HB 5065 on Florida taxpayers. Specifically, the bill spreads out the amount of federal bonus depreciation and additional expensing claimed by a taxpayer over a 7-year period on the taxpayer’s Florida return. The bill accomplishes this by providing that a taxpayer claiming bonus depreciation or additional expensing on its federal return must add 100% of the amount so claimed to Florida taxable income. Starting this year and for the next 6 years, the taxpayer can then subtract 1/7th of the amount by which taxable income was increased. These changes will approximate the depreciation allowances that would have occurred absent the two federal provisions. The bill applies retroactively to January 1, 2008.
Current Status: On March 5, 2009, SB 1112 became the first bill passed by the Florida Legislature, clearing the House on a vote of 116-0. The bill had previously passed the Senate on March 3 with a vote of 39-1. SB 1112 was sent to Governor Crist on March 11, and he is expected to sign it into law next week.
WORKERS’ COMP – ATTORNEY’S FEE CAP STATUS: PENDING
SB 2072 - Sen. Garrett Richter (R - Naples) AGC POSITION: SUPPORT
HB 903 – Rep. Anitere Flores (R – Miami)
In 2008, the Florida Supreme Court’s issued its decision in the Murray v. Mariner Health case, eliminating the caps on claimant’s attorney fees imposed by the Florida Legislature back in 2003. These caps had resulted in significantly lower costs and greater predictability in Florida’s workers’ compensation insurance system.
Prior to the 2003 reforms, Florida employers paid the 1st or 2nd highest workers compensation insurance rates in the country. From 1999 – 2003, rates increased more than 20%, and a major cost driver was attorneys’ fees. Florida’s average claim cost was nearly 40% higher than the national average when attorneys were involved in the case.
In 2003, AGC and the rest of the business community across Florida successfully pushed for sweeping reforms to Florida’s out-of-control workers’ compensation system. These reforms lowered premiums, cut exorbitant attorney’s fees, and reduced fraud. As a direct result of those reforms, Florida now has the 10th lowest workers’ comp rates in the country, with employers enjoying an unprecedented string of six consecutive rate cuts since 2003 and an overall reduction in the cost of workers’ comp insurance by over 60%.
Plaintiffs’ trial lawyers, however, sued to overturn a key component of those reforms – the cap on claimant’s attorneys fees – in the case of Murray v. Mariner Health. In October 2008, the Florida Supreme Court threw out the fee caps, claiming that the statutory language in question was “ambiguous.”
Unless corrected, this decision means employers will face more litigation, higher and more unpredictable workers’ compensation premiums, and an added financial burden, all while facing one of the most difficult economies in decades. Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation has already approved a 6.4% rate hike effective April 1, 2009, directly resulting from the impact of the Murray decision. NCCI has estimated that the elimination of the attorney’s fee caps will result in an 18.6% increase in workers comp premiums over a two-year period – costing Florida businesses hundreds of millions of dollars.
Current Status: HB 903 was heard in the House Insurance, Business & Financial Affairs Policy Committee on March 10 and received a favorable vote. A legislator opposed to the bill, however, invoked a rarely used procedural rule to retain the bill in committee so that it could not be immediately advanced any further in the legislative process. The committee met again on March 12, at which point a motion to reconsider the bill was defeated, clearing the bill to proceed to its last committee stop in the House. HB 903 is scheduled to be heard in its final committee on March 17. Its counterpart, SB 2072, has not yet been scheduled to be heard in committee.
CRANE REGULATION STATUS: PENDING
SB 1654 – Sen. Thad Altman (R – Melbourne) AGC POSITION: SUPPORT
HB 923 – Rep. Greg Evers (R – Milton)
Construction cranes are currently regulated under federal rules adopted by OSHA. OSHA has conducted a thorough and exhaustive review of these rules over the last few years in an effort to better protect against crane hazards, in consultation with many of the most knowledgeable engineering, construction, and safety experts in the nation and in the world. This review has culminated in new proposed rules setting forth comprehensive and detailed new regulations applicable to construction cranes and their operators, which were published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2008.
Construction cranes are routinely transported across city, county, and state lines, making uniform federal regulation of such equipment and its operators essential to commerce, to Florida’s economic competitiveness, and to minimizing construction costs in our state.
Several local governments, however, most notably Miami-Dade County, have recently enacted (or have expressed interest in enacting) burdensome new ordinances that seek to regulate the operation of construction cranes and to require the certification of crane operators. The Miami-Dade County crane ordinance was challenged by a consortium of construction groups, including the South Florida Chapter of AGC, and the ordinance is currently the subject of a preliminary injunction from the federal district court in light of the ordinance’s conflict with federal law and current OSHA regulations.
Legislation has been proposed in the last two regular sessions of the Florida Legislature to deal with the problems created by local regulation of cranes and crane operators. Last year, HB 609 by Rep. Evers passed the House (103-11), but the Senate bill (SB 1316 by Sen. Gaetz) made little progress.
This year, a similar bill, SB 1654 by Sen. Altman and HB 923 by Rep. Evers, would prohibit local governments from enacting any ordinances regulating cranes or crane operators, in deference to the federal OSHA regulations. The bill would also adopt statewide standards for certain construction cranes with respect to hurricane preparedness and communications. These are the aspects of the Miami-Dade County crane ordinance that the federal district court held were outside the purview of OSHA’s regulations and thus not preempted.
Current Status: The bill has been referred to four committees in the House and Senate. We are trying to break the bill free from a logjam of literally thousands of bills that are struggling to get heard in committees, which have heretofore filled most of their meeting time with discussions of the state budget. We expect HB 923 to be on the agenda of its first committee, the House Insurance, Business & Financial Affairs Policy Committee, on March 19, where it will likely be the subject of vocal opposition from local governments and from Miami-Dade County.
PRESERVING SECRET BALLOTS STATUS: PENDING
SJR 1908 – Sen. Garrett Richter (R – Naples) AGC POSITION: SUPPORT
HJR 1013 – Rep. Adam Hasner (R – Delray Beach)
The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) delineates the rights of employees to organize and to bargain collectively with their employers if they choose to do so. The NLRA establishes a procedure by which employees can exercise their choice as to union representation via a secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board. The NRLA also defines various practices of employers and unions as unfair trade practices.
H.R. 800, relating to the NLRA, was filed in the 110th Congress. The bill, which is referred to as the “Employee Free Choice Act,” would make numerous changes to the NLRA, including requiring the National Labor Relations Board to certify union representation without directing an election if a majority of the employees have authorized designation of the union in writing, e.g., via a “card-check.” The bill passed the House but was not heard in the Senate.
HJR 1013 and SJR 1908 propose the creation of Section 28 of Article I of the Florida Constitution to provide that voting by secret ballot is a fundamental right of all individuals. This constitutional amendment would provide that the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is guaranteed where local, state, or federal law requires elections for public office, requires public votes on initiatives or referenda, or requires designations or authorizations of employee representation. This measure is similar to proposals currently being advanced in at least 10 other states.
The bill must be approved by a three-fifths vote of the membership of each house of the Florida Legislature. If enacted by such vote, the proposal will be presented to Florida voters at the November 2, 2010 general election. Approval requires a favorable vote from 60 percent or more of the voters casting a vote on the measure.
Current Status: HJR 1013 passed through the first of its three committees on March 11. AGC testified in support of the bill, which is strongly opposed by labor unions. SJR 1908 is scheduled to be heard in the first of its four committees on March 18.
IMPACT FEE CHALLENGES STATUS: PENDING
SB 580 – Sen. Mike Haridopolos (R – Melbourne) AGC POSITION: SUPPORT
HB 227 – Rep. Gary Aubuchon (R – Cape Coral)
Impact fees are charges imposed against new development for the cost of additional infrastructure made necessary by that growth. In 2006, the Florida Impact Fee Review Task Force considered issues related to impact fees and recommended statutory direction on certain issues. However, on other issues presented to the Task Force, it did not recommend statutory direction. One of those issues was the legal burden of proof that a party challenging an impact fee must meet to successfully challenge an impact fee ordinance. Proponents argued that because of this burden, impact fee challenges are rarely successful. Proponents recommended elimination of the “fairly debatable” standard and adoption of the “greater weight of the evidence” (preponderance of the evidence) standard.
The adoption of an impact fee ordinance is a quasi-legislative function and is therefore subject to the “fairly debatable” standard of review. This standard of review is a highly deferential standard that requires approval of an action if reasonable persons could differ as to its propriety.
The above bill would alter the burden of proof in impact fee challenges, requiring the government to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the imposition or amount of the impact fee does not meet the requirements of state legal precedent or s. 163.31801, F.S. The bill also makes clear that no deferential standard should be applied in reviewing the government’s exaction of impact fees.
Current Status: SB 580 passed unanimously through the first of its four committees of reference on March 3. HB 227 is on the agenda to be taken up in its second of three committees on March 17.
LOCAL GOV’T CONSTRUCTION WORK STATUS: PENDING
SB 616 – Sen. Mike Haridopolos (R – Melbourne) AGC POSITION: SUPPORT
HB 611 – Rep. Dorothy Hukill (R – Port Orange)
The long-standing policy of this state has been to require local governments to put public construction work out for competitive bid. This policy maximizes the efficient use of public funds, with fair and open competition among experienced private sector contractors delivering the best possible project to the community at the lowest possible price for taxpayers. Under current law, local governments must competitively award all construction work with a value in excess of $200,000 (as adjusted for inflation), unless a recognized statutory exception applies, e.g., repairing damage from natural disasters or where a dangerous condition exists, repairing public utilities, etc.
Some local governments, however, are abusing these exceptions to get around the state’s competitive bidding requirements. The most frequently abused statutory exceptions to competitive bidding are a general exception for “repair and maintenance” (which some local governments have used to avoid competitive bidding on major water, sewer, and storm drainage projects) and an exception allowing a local government to “self-perform” construction work with its own employees and equipment if the local government simply determines that it is “in the public’s best interest.”
In 2008, Senator Haridopolos and Rep. Weatherford filed a bill (SB 2148 / HB 683) to tighten up these exceptions to competitive bidding and curtail their abuse. This bill passed successfully through all of its House committees, but ran out of time in the Senate. After much discussion between AGC and local governments in 2008, here are the key components of the 2009 bill:
- Maintenance & Repair – The original 2008 bill would have required all maintenance and repair work over $200,000 to be competitively bid. The 2009 bill distinguishes between “maintenance” and “repair,” allowing a local government to perform all of its own maintenance work and all minor repairs, but requiring competitive bidding for any repair work above the $200,000 threshold.
- “Self-Performing” Work with City/County Employees - Unless some other exception applies, a local government would be able to self-perform construction work only if it first puts the project out for bid and all bids are at least 10% higher than the local government’s cost estimate. In that event, the local government could decide to self-perform the work if it determines that it can do the work as cheaply as the lowest-cost bidder. The 2008 bill would have required a local government to hire an engineer and accountant to verify the project costs as a condition of self-performing the work, but this was removed from the 2009 bill in response to objections from cities and counties.
- Local Contractor Bid Preferences – The 2009 bill would allow a local government to award a contract to a locally-based contractor in the event of tie bids, but would otherwise prohibit a local government from favoring local contractors over contractors based elsewhere in the state when the local government evaluates bids. Similar types of preferences, in the event of tie bids only, exist in Florida law: §287.082 (commodities manufactured, grown, or produced in Florida); §287.092 (foreign companies with a factory in Florida employing more than 200 persons); §287.087 (businesses with drug-free workplace programs); §287.093 (minority businesses).
In response to objections from local governments to the 2008 bill, the 2009 bill does not include: (a) provisions limiting “no damage for delay” clauses in public construction contracts, which are used by some local governments to avoid paying any damages for delays caused by the local government or its agents; and (b) substantial changes to the procurement process for local road work.
Current Status: The bill has been referred to four committees in the House and Senate. We expected HB 611 to be on the agenda of its first committee, the House Roads, Bridges & Ports Policy Committee, on March 17, but that committee meeting has now been cancelled. Despite frequent meetings and correspondence between AGC and representatives of local government, the cities and counties have dug in and want no changes to law that would constrain their current practices.
LIEN LAW / PAYMENT BONDS STATUS: PENDING
SB 560 – Sen. Mike Bennett (R - Bradenton) AGC POSITION: AMEND AS NEEDED
HB 299 – Rep. John Tobia (R – Melbourne)
Coming on the heels of a review of Florida’s construction lien law over the past two years by the Senate Regulated Industries Committee, this bill contains several changes to current law, most of which are intended to make the lien law more “consumer-friendly.” The bill also reformats some of the statutory language to make it more readable.
While the bill is expected to be substantially amended when it is initially heard in committee, the bill will likely contain the following provisions:
- Makes a notice of commencement valid until 90 days after all work is completed or the owner files a notice of termination, thus eliminating the current improper payment trap for owners and contractors caused by automatic expiration of the notice of commencement within one year, on any later expiration date cited in the notice, or if the project is not commenced within 90 days of recording the notice.
- Requires a copy of the payment bond, if any, to be recorded as an attachment to the notice of commencement.
- Requires a new statutorily-created “plain language” notice to owners of their rights and obligations under the lien law on any single or multiple family dwellings up to and including four units. This notice must be signed and provided to the building official with the building permit application.
- Requires, as a pre-condition to any inspections, that the building official have on file a copy of the recorded notice of commencement, a copy of the recorded payment bond, if any, and a copy of the “plain language” notice signed by the owner on single or multiple family dwellings up to and including four units.
Current Status: Neither of these bills has yet been heard in committee, but we have reason to believe that HB 299 may be heard as early as next week. AGC is busy trying to work out various problematic components of the anticipated bill with representatives of subcontractors and suppliers. In particular, AGC is concerned about a provision sought by these groups that would fundamentally change how “prevailing party” attorney’s fees are awarded with respect to lien and payment bond claims. Rather than relying on long-established precedent which requires a court to look at the case as whole to determine which party, if any, “prevailed” on the significant issues in dispute, the change sought by suppliers and subcontractors would award attorney’s fees to the lienor or bond claimant if they recover any amount at all in the litigation, even $1.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS: PENDING
SB 360 – Sen. Mike Bennett (R – Bradenton) AGC POSITION: SUPPORT
MLA 1 – House Military & Local Affairs Policy Committee
SB 360 creates the Community Renewal Act. The bill makes a number of revisions to the Growth Management Act and the Environmental Land and Water Management Act, including changes to the comprehensive plan amendment process, allowing additional growth in densely populated areas, and revising the consequences arising when local governments have not met certain reporting requirements.
Specifically, SB 360:
- Extends the compliance deadline for local governments to submit financially feasible capital improvement elements (CIE) from December 1, 2008 to December 1, 2011, and eliminates one of the penalties for failing to adopt a public schools facility element.
- Creates Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEAs) in all local government jurisdictions with an average of at least 1,000 people per square mile, and in counties, including the municipalities located therein, which have a population of at least 1 million. TCEAs are not created for designated transportation concurrency districts within a county that has a population of at least 1.5 million that uses its transportation concurrency system to support alternative modes of transportation and does not levy transportation impact fees.
- Creates a waiver from transportation concurrency requirements on the state’s strategic intermodal system for certain Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development (OTTED) job creation projects.
- Applies the alternative state review process to comprehensive plan map amendments in jurisdictions where the local government has 1,000 or more persons per square mile or a county, including the municipalities located therein, which has a population of at least 1 million, and map amendments in Rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern (RACEC) communities if certified by the OTTED as supporting a RACEC target industry. This reduces the statutorily prescribed timeframe from 136 days to 65 days.
Decreases the allowable submittal of text amendments to comprehensive plans from twice a year to once a year, unless the text amendment is directly related to a future land use map amendment.
- Grants developments in local governments with an average of at least 1,000 people per square mile, or a county which has a population of at least 1 million (including the municipalities located therein), an exemption from the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) program.
Current Status: SB 360 was due to be considered in its final committee last week, but the bill was delayed to await action by the House on its version of the legislation. The House is moving forward with a committee bill by its Military & Local Affairs Policy Committee, which was introduced on March 11. The House bill differs from SB 360 in many material respects, including a provision that extends the validity of all state and local permits, development orders, and concurrency certificates for a period of two years. Negotiations between the House and Senate are ongoing.
PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT STATUS: PENDING
SB 2666 – Sen. Mike Haridopolos (R – Melbourne) AGC POSITION: SUPPORT
HB 1459 – Rep. Steve Crisafulli (R – Merritt Island)
“Construction management” is a professional service that applies effective management techniques to the planning, design, and/or construction of a project for the purpose of controlling building costs and quality. Such services are offered to public and private owners by licensed general contractors and other construction professionals. Construction management may be offered on a fee-for-service basis or on an “at-risk” basis, in which the construction manager commits to deliver the project within a “guaranteed maximum price.”
The “Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act” (s. 287.055) allows state and local government entities to procure various “professional services” (architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, and surveying/mapping) through a competitive, qualifications-based selection process rather than through the standard competitive proposal process, which can place undue emphasis on cost at the expense of other important criteria.
State and local government entities would generally like to have the option of using the qualifications-based selection process set out in the Act to procure “construction management” services from state-licensed general contractors.
Over the last year, however, some questions have been raised within the Department of Management Services about whether the Act provides sufficient authority for state and local government entities to procure construction management services in this fashion.
In 2007, AGC successfully passed legislation to allow local governments to procure the services of a construction management or project management entity using the Act’s qualifications-based selection process. The local government may require a guaranteed maximum price or a guaranteed completion date. For projects that contain substantially similar construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities, the local government may require a separate guaranteed maximum price and separate guaranteed completion date for each grouping of substantially similar construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities within the project.
At that time, however, the Department of Management Services (“DMS”) was not prepared to move forward with legislation giving state agencies similar flexibility in procuring construction management services.
In 2008, AGC worked closely with DMS on advancing a bill to accomplish this goal. The bill moved successfully through all of its House committees but got bogged down in Senate committees and ran out of time.
Current Status: The bill has been referred to two committees in the Senate and four committees in the House, but no hearings on the bill have been scheduled to date. If the bill does not make sufficient progress through committees, AGC will try to tack the necessary language onto another bill that is moving more quickly.
SUNRAIL STATUS: PENDING
SB 1212 – Sen. Lee Constantine (R – Altamonte Springs) AGC POSITION: MONITOR
HB 7009 – Econ. Develop. & Comm. Affairs Policy Council
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), in cooperation with the federal government and local governments in Orange, Seminole, Volusia and Osceola Counties, is advancing a commuter rail transit project (Sunrail) to operate along a 61-mile stretch of existing CSX freight tracks in the four-county area. The 31-mile Phase 1 segment would link DeBary to Orlando. Phase II would expand north to DeLand and south to Poinciana. Service is expected to begin in 2011 – just as FDOT starts a major I-4 reconstruction project through the area. The $2.3 billion cost for the project (projected through 2039) will be shared by the state ($385M), local governments ($764M), and the federal government ($683M), with the system expected to generate total income over that time of $510 million.
State legislation is required in order to authorize FDOT’s entry into the necessary agreements with CSX for use of its freight rail tracks. This bill failed to pass in the 2008 Regular Session due to conflict over the liability protections included in the bill and to opposition from many in the Lakeland area, which would experience substantially increased freight train traffic if the Sunrail project goes forward.
Current Status: This week, SB 1212 passed through the second of its four committees. HB 7009 is awaiting committee references.
ARBITRATION STATUS: PENDING
SB 2192 - Sen. Jeremy Ring (D – Margate) AGC POSITION: OPPOSE
HB 1135 – Rep. Ralph Poppell (R – Titusville)
Arbitration exists for the sole purpose of giving parties a quicker, easier, less costly way to resolve disputes. The above bill is part of a nationwide effort by plaintiff’s trial lawyers to eliminate the use of arbitration in many consumer and small business settings, like insurance, and reduce its effectiveness in others by making arbitration much more cumbersome and costly. For example, the bill would subject arbitration to the same rules of discovery and evidence as are applicable in small claims proceedings and would significantly expand the grounds for vacating an arbitration award. Mandatory binding arbitration provisions would be enforceable only if they are enforceable under federal law.
AGC was opposed to a similar bill introduced in 2008, and AGC remains opposed to this bill, which would apply to any construction contract involving a consumer or a “small business,” which is defined as one that employs no more than 200 permanent full-time employees or that, together with its affiliates, has a net worth of not more than $10 million.
Arbitration is an effective tool that the parties to a contract may choose to agree to in order to promote a speedy and less costly resolution of disputes. With significant cuts in funding to our state court system over the last few years and more to come, which will have a disproportionately large impact on civil lawsuits, now is not the time to make arbitration more difficult and costly.
Current Status: The bill has been referred to four committees in both the House and the Senate but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.
Michelle Anaya DePotter
Executive Director
|
