Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/08/1994 01:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 515 - MANAGEMENT OF STATE LAND AND RESOURCES NEIL JOHANNSEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), said, "I would like to first point out that Title 38, the Alaska Lands Act, has an early history. Obviously, as the Governor says, we're an owner state. We own, if you consider the submerged lands, probably somewhere around 160 million acres of land: One and a half California's. Our economy by and large rests upon those resources and Title 38 is a statute that goes back 35 years. In fact, Title 38 had it's beginning with statehood in 1959. It has been added to, patched on to, improved, perhaps not improved in many areas through the years. We think that we need to start designing a new model. Title 38 has grown to about 200 pages. There's a lot of redundancy in Title 38. There's a lot of things in it that makes the bureaucracy less than totally efficient. The first point that I'd like to make here is: It's the department's position that Title 38 needs many changes. It probably needs close to a total rewrite. However, what we are taking on with your help, is basically a two phase process. We want to do some fairly quick, we would hope relatively easy adjustments to make Alaska's land law work better. For it to be a more efficient body of law to manage our natural resources. At the same time, we're going through a process of trying to examine the nearly 200 pages of statutes and there's a lot of regulations that apply to those statutes, to try to come up with something that will streamline and clarify and hopefully, craft a more efficient body of law for the future. Particularly given the fact that most of the dollars go down and a lot of the bureaucracy, etc., may be difficult for us to afford at the same time that we need to increase the flow of revenues to state. The bill (HB 515) is a complicated bill, even though it's only about 17 pages long. It touches many different flavors of resources. Everything from land disposals, to Native allotments in parks, to setnet in aquatic farm sites, timber sales, oil and gas leasing, and there's an important section on mining. So we are essentially providing something for everybody. There's nothing in this bill that does not touch every Alaskan... So we think that there will be a lot of interest, before it's over with. Basically, we're after something that will create what we will view, a more efficient government. If you look at it in a collective sense, that will put us in a better and more efficient situation to sell and to lease natural resources. There's other things there but, by and large, what we're looking for here is something that will allow us to not eliminate public process, public process is important...but after talking to many different people, both inside and outside government interest groups, the Resource Development Council to a lot of people, it was our stance to embark upon the journey with some relatively small changes. ...some of you are probably wondering why the State Park Director is sitting here talking about timber and oil and gas and mining. Last week when they gave me this bill to basically kind of coordinate, I'm not the commander but the coordinator here, I asked the same question. I've never even read Title 38, but in spite of the fact that I direct our park system, I've got a Master's degree in Forestry and I have a fairly wide interest in the efficient management of our resources. I am here basically to coordinate, to bring people to the table. If you have interest in specific resources, to make sure that you've got the state's top expert there to talk with you about that. With that said, I would like to just simply offer a couple of requests from the Administration. This is obviously the Governor's bill. The Administration has gone through a lot of internal opera to get here, believe me, and without going into the details, having watched the crafting of Title 38 in the last eighteen months in the department (DNR) its been a big deal to get here. But the Administration has basically a couple of requests of this committee... with all due respect to the committee. Our first request is that it's a short bill and this would be a very tempting bill to become...a christmas tree. We feel as if, if the bill becomes fly paper and a lot of things get stuck on it, it's going to potentially affect its progress through the legislature...so, with all due respect, through each of the committees we're going to ask that the bill not go through a lot of amendment. It's been through a lot of examination by a lot of people to get here. We are working on phase two for you. That will cover the bigger picture. The last point I would like to make is to just simply...there's not a lot of time left and most of you are in the majority... We would really like to see this bill make it through, and somebody had mentioned to me that you guys are halfway through your session this week, so there's not a lot of time and so I apologize for that, but we would like to see the bill try and make it to the Governor..." He referred to other DNR directors to describe their sections of the bill. Representative John Davies joined the committee at 1:20 p.m. Number 227 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked, "Is this also being introduced on the Senate side?" MR. JOHANNSEN said, "The bill has been introduced as Senate Bill 339." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Who's carrying that? Is there somebody specifically?" MR. JOHANNSEN replied, "It's the Governor's bill. It has not been heard in the Senate, we believe there are a number of people who have a lot of interest in the bill, but I could not name a specific legislator." Number 243 RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LANDS, DNR, said, "The vast majority of the bill is land related. Sections 1 through 7 of the bill would amend AS 38.04.020 to delete the land disposal bank for potential state land sales, recast the land bank as a land disposal program, revise planning and classification requirements, and make appropriation requests for land disposals discretionary by the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Currently, existing AS 38.04.020 requires the land bank to have at least 500,000 acres classified and available for disposal into private ownership. That statute also requires an annual report on the status of the land bank and mandates that the commissioner annually submit an appropriation request to the legislature to administer surveys and disposals of land. The land bank system is outdated because regional land use plans have now classified over 2,000,000 acres of state land for disposal. Section 35 of the bill repeals existing AS 38.04.020(c), (f), (j), and (k), the requirements of which have become unnecessary due to the amount of land now classified for disposal. Section 8 of the bill makes a conforming amendment to AS 38.04.021(b)(1). MR. SWANSON continued, "Sections 9 and 10 of the bill amend existing AS 38.04.030 and AS 38.04.035 to simplify the methods that DNR can use to design state land disposals. Section 9 amends existing AS 38.04.030 by authorizing DNR to develop additional disposal programs by regulation. A program established by regulation would have to provide for competitive disposal at no less than fair market value, but would not necessarily have to conform to existing programs in AS 38. Section 10 amends AS 38.04.035 by making a fair market value return to the state mandatory, rather than discretionary, when state land is conveyed to private parties, unless a conveyance for less than fair market value is specifically authorized by statute or regulation. MR. SWANSON further stated, "Section 11 of the bill amends existing AS 38.05.035(b)(9) to allow DNR to reconvey substitute land for state land that is subject to a pending Native allotment application. This amendment is designed to give DNR the ability to relocate Native allotment claims from state parks and recreation areas to less sensitive areas. Existing AS 38.05.035(b)(9) only allows the reconveyance of land wrongfully conveyed by the federal government to the state, such as land subject to Native use and occupancy predating state selection. The amendment is intended to allow DNR to take advantage of a 1992 amendment to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43 U.S.C. 1617(c), which authorizes the relocation of pending Native allotment claims to substitute state land with the commissioner of DNR's concurrence. MR. SWANSON continued, "Sections 13 and 14 of the bill delete from existing AS 38.05.055 and AS 38.05.057(a) the requirement that a purchaser appear in person at a lottery or auction for state land. In Chambers v. State, No. 3AN- 88-4634 CI (1989), that requirement was held to violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution of Alaska because it discriminates between local and non-local residents. Section 12 of the bill amends existing AS 38.05.050 to remove the requirement that the lottery or auction be held in a community near the land to be disposed. Such a decision would, instead, be discretionary. Section 35 of the bill repeals existing AS 38.05.057(g) and AS 38.05.057(j), which are premised on the existing requirements in AS 38.05.050, AS 38.05.055, and AS 38.05.057(a) that are being deleted. Section 32 of the bill amends AS 38.09.010(g) to remove language related to personal appearance at a lottery and local site for a lottery. MR. SWANSON said, "In addition, sec. 14 of the bill deletes a provision of AS 38.05.057(a) that requires the commissioner of DNR to consult with the municipal assessor before determining the purchase price for state land located in that municipality. Because the appraisal required by existing AS 38.05.840 gives the commissioner an accurate valuation, the consultation requirement is unnecessary. MR. SWANSON read, "Section 15 of the bill repeals and reenacts AS 38.05.069(e)(2). Existing AS 38.04.069(e)(2) defines "approximate vicinity," a term that is not used elsewhere in existing AS 38.05.069, the agricultural preference right statute. The bill would replace "approximate vicinity" with a definition of "adjacent," a term that is used elsewhere in that statute. MR. SWANSON said, "Changes made by secs. 16 through 18 and sec 35 of the bill eliminate special procedures for leasing setnet and aquatic farming sites contained in existing AS 38.05.082, 38.05.083, and 38.05.856. Sections 29 and 35 revise the public notice requirements of existing AS 38.05.945 accordingly, by repealing AS 38.05.945(a)(5) and (6) and amending AS 38.05.945(d). Section 16 amends existing AS 38.05.082(b), which requires DNR to award setnet leases between two or more competing applicants on the basis of a complex analysis of the "most qualified applicant." This procedure is highly dependent on DNR's ability to make factual determinations as to each applicant's tenure in the fishery, present ability to utilize the location to its maximum potential, and "other factors relevant to the equitable assignment of the disputed area." The amendment would replace this procedure with the options of either a public auction under AS 38.05.075(a) or, if only one application is received and the value of the lease is $5,000 a year or less, a negotiated lease under AS 38.05.070(b). In secs. 3 and 5, ch. 27, SLA 1991, the legislature amended AS 38.05.082(b), effective January 1, 1997, regarding language that refers to DNR land use plans. Section 34 of the attached bill clarifies that the changes in the bill regarding new procedures for determining the qualifications of setnet lease applicants, contained in sec. 16 of the bill, do not affect the changes made to AS 38.05.082(b) by secs. 3 and 5, ch. 27, SLA 1991. MR. SWANSON further stated, "In sec. 18 of the bill, AS 38.05.083 is repealed and reenacted to set out aquatic farm and hatchery site leasing procedures. In the repeal and reenactment, many of the existing permit provisions in AS 38.05.856 are moved to AS 38.05.083 as leasing provisions. AS 38.05.856 is repealed by sec. 35 of the bill. Section 35 of the bill also repeals existing AS 38.05.855, which requires DNR to identify and propose sites for aquatic farms and hatcheries, and AS 38.05.946(b), which requires DNR to hold public hearings on those proposed sites. The purpose of these changes is to bring the leasing of setnet and aquatic farming sites into conformity with the procedures governing other state land uses. Section 36 of the bill makes clear that the changes made to existing AS 38.05.083 and 38.05.856 by secs. 18 and 34 of the bill do not impair the legal rights of a person who holds a permit under those statutes. Section 19 of the bill repeals and reenacts AS 38.05.090 to make a lessee of state land responsible for returning a former leasehold to a marketable condition. The amendment would also provide for the automatic vesting of title in the state of any personal property, buildings, or fixtures that are not removed by the lessee within a specified time. Under the existing statute, a lessee who leaves buildings or personal property on state land when a lease expires is not subject to any penalty and is not responsible for the costs of restoring the property to a condition suitable for subsequent leasing. The changes made by sec. 19 would address this statutory deficiency." Number 368 TOMAS BOUTIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DNR, proceeded reading verbatim where Mr. Swanson stopped, midway on page 6 of the DNR document submitted to the committee, "Section 20 would allow the commissioner after a best interest determination to offer for sale timber that would lose substantial economic value or would perpetuate insect or disease, if not salvaged within two years and thereby the requirements in 38.05.113, among them the requirement that a sale has been in the five year plan for at least the two prior years, would not exist. And also the requirement in 38.05.115 which says that a negotiated sale can't be larger than 500,000 board feet and has to be a year or less in duration, would not be a requirement. Section 21 would amend 118(c) to allow the commissioner to do a negotiated sale, if the conditions which are now in 118(c) were to exist perspectively within the next two years." Number 387 JERRY GALLAGHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, DNR testified for Oil and Gas saying, "Section 22...this change, I believe is in a Senate bill that's now somewhere, SB 322. This specific provision has been on and off the explorational licensing package that has been moving through, but hasn't passed yet. It's not on any of the exploration licensing bills now. This is a section that requires an oil and gas lease sale to be on the sales schedule for at least two years. The way the language is written now, that lease sale must be held within 90 days of the quarter it was scheduled and if it isn't held within that time period, it has to go back on the schedule for two years. We're proposing to eliminate that language which requires that 90 day time frame. We propose that for two reasons: First of all in those cases, such as lease sale 78, where we've been enjoined and it seems unlikely that we will be able to hold it within 90 days, we have to go through the process all over. Even if after four or five years, it turns out that we might win that case, we still have to go through the process. The second reason is, some of the folks, again lease sale 78, folks on the Kenai said we want more time to comment. The way the law is written now we couldn't give them that time, because that would automatically put us over the limit. So, this is the sword that cuts both ways but we think it will give the department a lot more flexibility. Section 23, we get into the mining sections. AS 38.05.185 (a) is the section that talks about the commissioner's authority to close land and the commissioner, since statehood has always been very careful to mineral entry and that's the bureaucratic term for staking mining claims. The law allows the commissioner to close it to mineral entry and mining, and we've been advised by the Department of Law that, as written, the commissioner could actually close to mining, valid existing mining claims." Number 420 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "The federal law, I believe, says that you cannot close to mineral entry land that is valid mining land, that has actual potential validity to it." MR. GALLAGHER replied, "Right. The way the state law is written, although it's never been used this way, is that the commissioner can close it to mineral entry or mining. Our concern is that if the close to mining provisions were ever used against valid existing rights that would one, perhaps be unconstitutional and certainly constitute taking. Now, the legislature can take with compensation, the commissioner doesn't have the authority. The commissioner doesn't have that kind of a bank account. So what we want to do is clean this up so there's no question that the commissioner's authority cannot trample valid existing rights... The commissioner can only close it to future claim staking. It can't have any effect on the valid existing rights. Section 24...this is language that dates back to statehood, 1959. It's language that the federal government had in the 50s, it is no longer applicable. It is arcane language and it requires in sections 4 and 5 that an alien, someone from another country or another corporation, that that country have like mining rights to the State of Alaska, which means mining claims and stuff. There's not a country that has this kind of right, okay? So what this statute does is it employs a number of fairly clever attorneys in Anchorage to create hoops so that you can comply with this. It has no purpose. What we're proposing to do is eliminate that language to put miners and mining companies on the same foot as every other business as Alaska...qualified corporation in the state. Section 25... (In) 1989 the legislature adopted rents and royalties for state miners and the discussion at that point was, `Gosh if we stick a firm number in statute for the rent, it could become out of date, due to inflation at some point,' so what the legislature did is they put an escalator in there based on the consumer price index of Anchorage. We still believe that's a good idea. The way it was written then was that every five years we will adjust it, based on the Anchorage CPI, right now it's $20, next year we have to adjust it. Well, it could be $23.11. Frankly, I've got just a couple of state employees who collect that $20 from 44 mining claims and it's a whole lot easier, if they collect it in round numbers. So what we're saying is, let's keep the idea of the escalator in there but let's do it in $5 increments, not in five year increments. It's a whole lot easier for both the miners and my staff to deal with. Section 26...AS 38.05.255 is the section of state law that gives miners the right to use the surface for mining purposes...for mills, for tailings disposals, for those long-term surface improvements they need for a mine. Unfortunately, the statute refers to this authorization as a permit and a permit by law is a one year revocable authorization. If you're going to invest tens of millions of dollars in a mill, in a mine, and you take this revocable one year authorization to the bank, they're not very happy. So this clearly needs to be a lease and we have changed the words out to make it work as a lease. Section 27 is a relatively minor change. This has to do with abandonment of mining claims. There's language in there now that says, `If you ask for a lease application from me to convert your mining claims to a lease, and I send it to you, and you don't return it to me within 60 days, you lose your mining claims.' Well, you might change your mind. It's an unnecessary and particularly harsh piece of law that serves no purpose at this point and we're suggesting to get rid of that language. In the repealer section, which is section 35, page 16 (of HB 155), most of these repealers are conforming to make the other sections work, but buried in the middle there's 38.05.207, part of the statute that requires a production license for miners. This was adopted in 1983. The legislature thought that this would provide adequate public notice to avoid and handle `Six Eye' litigation, the Supreme Court said, `No, it doesn't.' It's still on the books, miners don't apply for them. We don't issue them. They serve no purpose. Clean up the statutes and get them out of there." Number 504 MR. SWANSON read from a document submitted to committee members dated March 1, 1994. "Section 28 of the bill amends AS 38.05.850(a) to clarify that the use of revokable permits is allowable to authorize certain uses of limited value. MR. SWANSON continued, "Sections 30, 31 and 33 of the bill amend existing AS 38.08.030, 38.08.040, and AS 38.09.030, respectively, to increase fees for the use of homesites and homesteads before patent, to defray DNR's administrative costs. Existing AS 38.08.030(b) sets a maximum $10 application fee for the use of a homesite. Existing AS 38.09.030(a) limits the application fee for homesteads to $5 per acre. These minimal fees presently paid by permittees for the use of state land do not even cover DNR's administrative costs. This proposal would amend AS 38.08.030(b) by increasing the fee for new homesite applications to the maximum of $25 set out in AS 38.05.057(d), and would amend AS 38.08.040(a) to establish a $100 annual fee to receive and hold a homesite permit before patent. AS 38.09.030(a) would be amended to increase the application fee for homesteads to $20 per acre if the land is not classified as agricultural. The fee increases would apply only to new applications filed after the effective date of this bill. Section 36 of the bill makes clear that the new requirement in AS 38.08.040 for payment of an annual rental fee for a homesite entry permit does not apply to a person who was issued a permit under that statute's existing guarantee that the $10 "application fee is the sole rent chargeable on the permit for its duration. MR. SWANSON continued, "In addition, secs. 30 and 31 make amendments to clarify that homesite entry permits are issued under lottery procedures in AS 38.05.057(e), (f), and (h). Under DNR regulations, lottery procedures apply to issuance of the permits, but AS 38.05.057 and AS 38.08 are not clear regarding the applicable procedures. MR. SWANSON said, "Section 35 of the bill would repeal existing AS 38.09.050(d) and (e), which prohibit the sale of homesteads for five years after the issuance of patent and the subdivision of homesteads for either five or 10 years after patent, depending on whether the land was purchased under AS 38.09.090. Section 38 of the bill would prohibit DNR from including the conditions of former AS 38.05.078(d) (prohibiting sale or subdivision of the parcel for 10 years after purchase) in a remote parcel purchase contract issued after the effective date of this bill. This section also would require DNR to amend a remote parcel or homestead purchase contract or patent issued before the effective date of the bill if the holder of the contract or patent pays (1) the administrative costs of the amendment, and (2) the difference between the land's fair market value before and after the conditions on the land are removed. The latter requirement is proposed because the fair market value of remote parcel land and homestead entry land sold by the state under existing law has been reduced by 50 percent to account for the conditions in AS 38.05.078 and AS 38.09.050. Removal of the conditions under secs. 34 and 37 of the bill is designed to increase revenue from state land sales and to allow private landowners greater use of the land. That's kind of a thumbnail sketch of the section analysis of the bill. From there, I'd answer your questions." Number 544 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "I get a little nervous when you say, `we've got to do this right away' because... I'm a little paranoid in this job. My question is: Are we going to subject fishing, timber, mining, oil and gas industry or have you worked with the industries to alleviate their fears or are we going to start getting phone calls saying that this is a terrible (bill)?" MR. GALLAGHER replied, "We have alerted the industries, the environmental groups, various groups, what we we're up to. We gave them shopping lists early on and we took their comment. But we did not seek, nor did we receive their concurrence. So, we already know there are some parts of this that some groups like, some dislike, but we have not worked these problems through." Number 557 MR. JOHANNSEN said, "There are sections of the bill that are going to be controversial and I believe the vast majority of sections will not be controversial. I'm not going to tell you which ones we think are controversial. Most of it, I believe is relatively benign from the standpoint of people getting lathered up, but there's a couple things here." Number 569 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked, "When you go out and get ready to make a timber sale, what do you do to protect the streams, the fisheries, so to speak?" MR. BOUTIN said, "We're talking about state land here in this particular bill. On stream protection on state land, there's a 100 foot buffer strip on either side of important fish habitat which is virtually a `no-cut zone,' even though 41.17.087 does allow variations, the state doesn't use variations in that 100 foot `no-cut zone' on its own land...and then from 100 feet out to 300 feet, there's a special wildlife management zone and secondly, a second answer to your question is that the state, in every timber sale, goes through two concurrent processes. One, 38.05.113 is a five year planning document and the sale must have been in the five year sale plan for the two prior years and we receive comment from agencies, municipalities and the public about important considerations, including fish habitat. Then 38.05.112 is a forest land use plan which is a decision document process and there too, we have comment from agencies, municipalities and the public. But for protection of fish habitat and water quality, the state Forest Resource and Practices Act, updated in 1990, is directed specifically at fish habitat and water quality." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked, "Who follows through to see that that's complied with?" MR. BOUTIN said, "Here we're talking about contract administration of the state's own timber sales and so there's a process for inspection and oversight of timber sales and then the reforestation that follows afterwards." Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES said, "Will we have an opportunity to meet with DNR folks after we hear public testimony?" CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I suppose we could hear public testimony and then have our DNR people come back to address the concerns expressed during public testimony." Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "Since this is a fairly complicated...a lot of different issues in it. I expect that we may hear, I know on certain issues, we're going to hear a lot of comment and I would certainly welcome the opportunity after we've heard that comment to reflect some of those questions back to the administration." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think what we'd like to do is accommodate the Governor's wishes in giving the bill a chance to pass this session but at the same time, give it a measured look while we're at it. It does have two other referrals." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "With respect to Title 38 and rewriting it, I certainly concur that there's a lot of language and some of it's inconsistent, selfcontradictory and we need to look at that. I guess I would be more comfortable, however, if we didn't mix what are the sort of benign, what most people would concede are housekeeping details, with other more controversial issues. It just, as a matter of procedure, would seem like it would be a good idea to try to identify those things that were really and truly housekeeping, just the matters of making the language conforming, and I believe there are quite a long list of those kinds of things, and separate this out... Whenever we do this, Title 38 of course, as you indicated touches every single in the State of Alaska, it's important therefore, as a general precept, that we preserve the public ability to make input at every step of the way. And in that preservation I can't resist the comment that it's impossible to be totally efficient. Democracy is not necessarily a very efficient process and when we want to hear from everyone. It's a little frustrating sometimes that we can't move along as quick as we'd like to. I also have a question about what is Phase Two and is there a timetable associated with that?" Number 638 MR. JOHANNSEN replied, "Phase Two basically, at this point in time, is starting to evolve from what had earlier been perceived as taking pieces of Title 38 and advancing them as legislation. It's now appearing that it's going to be difficult to chop up Title 38 and submit it in pieces. It creates a real complication between the policy statement and what follows, and also the body of regulations that have been promulgated based upon Title 38. That's the long answer. The short answer is: We are hoping to have legislation for the next session. What it's going to look like, how comprehensive it's going to be, I don't know. But at this point in time, we are hoping to having a fairly controversial, freudian slip, correction, a fairly comprehensive bill next session." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "You gentlemen, of course, will be available for questions, is that correct? Detailed, honest questions with detailed, honest answers? I would like to see us have testimony, on say, mining and fishing at one meeting so we could go through it that way, and the next meeting we go through timber and oil and gas. So at least we're fairly well versed before we make a judgment call." MR. GALLAGHER said, "The department's staff and directors are available in any way you want that to happen. Formal committee hearings and work sessions and one-on-ones, we will have the right people when you need them." Number 674 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I think it might be helpful...there was some reference made to a different Senate bill. I know that there are at least two other bills that have language that's either similar to or related to items that are in (HB 155). SB 310 comes to mind and HB, I don't know what it was that we dealt with in Resources a couple of days ago, which relates to this issue of ANCSA. I think it would be helpful if we had some cross references to what those others bill do or don't do with respect to, if the other bill were to pass this language would be necessary and visa versa. So I think some cross referencing..." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "(There) was one that triggered something in my memory about a bill having to do with Native land selections within parks and being able to trade. I think as this process comes together that will probably happen perhaps naturally. I suppose what I'm envisioning next is a public hearing on teleconference for everybody to let us know what they think. I don't know whether we want everybody from the department here to respond to those as they come in, or whether we want to hear it all, digest and then have another hearing, public teleconference type hearing with the department representatives here." Number 696 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY suggested a four hour meeting on a weekend. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG said, "We will have another hearing on it probably next Tuesday and perhaps let's all be thinking about how best to structure that hearing..." REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said, "Certainly, I think these gentlemen should hear the questions rather than have us translate them, because something would get lost in translation..." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked about the status of the Mental Health Lands litigation as it relates to HB 515. TAPE 94-11, SIDE B Number 000 MR. JOHANNSEN replied, "The Mental Health bill...that bill's going to be introduced likely within about two weeks." MR. SWANSON said, "That is correct, and we've been very careful on these Title 38 amendments, not to cross over so we have a conflict. The two can be dealt with totally separately." ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN OLBERG set the next hearing on HB 515 on Tuesday, May 15, 1994, at 1:15 p.m. and then adjourned the meeting at 2:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|