Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/03/2000 01:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 218
An Act relating to property loaned to or held by
museums.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to adopt work draft #1-LS0786\H,
Bannister, 3/3/00, as the version before the Committee.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT,
commented that he had made a modification to the "H" draft
and noted that he would make his comments to that version.
Mr. Tibbles distributed a handout illustrating the "Timeline
for Acquisition". [Copy on File].
Mr. Tibbles pointed out that the original bill had required
return receipt notices which has been eliminated in the
proposed version. The second notice requirement was
eliminated and the timeline date was set at 90 days.
Mr. Tibbles pointed out another concern regarding the
"contracts". He stated that the language had been written
"permissively" by the use of "may". The language would
provide that there could be two exclusive mechanisms for
buying property. He advised that language had been added to
the definition to exclude all loans that have intent to
transfer the title of the property.
Co-Chair Therriault advised that if specifics were specified
in the contract, that language would take preference. He
pointed out that language on Page 2, Lines 16-18 had been
deleted.
Representative J. Davies questioned the 90-day timeline. He
pointed out the requirement for four weeks of newspaper
publishing. He noted that if there were a delay in
initiating that process, it would not occur on the 90th day.
He recommended that the 90th day should be replaced with
language: "Following the four weeks of notice".
KEVIN HAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO, explained that
language would stipulate that taking ownership by the museum
would happen on the 61st day after the first newspaper
announcement which would push the 90-days back.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that the 90 days was
referenced on Page 2, Line 15.
Mr. Tibbles added that section stipulates when it is
required to be included in the notice. It does not set out
the requirements for that provision. The section, which
outlines the requirements is on Page 3, Subsection (E).
Representative Phillips explained that the 90 days was only
for the notification. That language does not indicate the
notification process.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is concern exists as it
is stated "90 days", however, it could be pushed to 95 days
or more. He recommended that the notice indicate the actual
number of days.
Representative J. Davies referenced Page 3, Subsection (E),
Lines 3-8. That language reads that as of the 61st day. He
questioned what would happen if the notice was out for only
two weeks rather than the stipulated four weeks. He asked
if it could be claimed that there was an interruption. Vice
Chair Bunde explained that the owner must submit their claim
within 90 days to access it.
Representative J. Davies voiced concern that there could be
an alternative attempt to make contact creating an arbitrary
circumstance. Mr. Tibbles pointed out that there had been
60 days built in; the article will run for 30 days and then
they will have an additional 30 days to make contact. Vice
Chair Bunde interjected that an owner would have 90 days,
however, the actual notification process would run for 100
days.
Representative J. Davies recommended that the language be
changed to the 31st day after the last public notice runs.
He proposed a conceptual amendment, to Page 3, Line 4, which
would require four weeks of newspaper notice. He voiced
concern that the "61st" day might not mesh with the
newspaper articles. Mr. Tibbles commented that seems to be
the same stipulation; he questioned the need. He pointed
out that the notice states that you have 90 days to respond.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the if the person came
in on the "91st" day, they would not be precluded from making
the claim. Vice Chair Bunde countered that they would be
precluded. He commented that he agreed with Representative
J. Davies perspective.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the wording on Page 2
references what the notices must include on Page 6. Vice
Chair Bunde emphasized that the wording is not accurate.
Co-Chair Therriault stipulated that he would have no problem
making the language consistent. Representative J. Davies
reiterated that it would need to be 31 days after the
publication required in Subsection c was complete.
Mr. Tibbles agreed that it was confusing. There are two
notices, the written notice and the one itemized in the
newspaper. That notice states that it is 30 days from one,
and 60 days from the other.
Representative J. Davies MOVED a conceptual amendment,
Amendment #1 that the "museum requires title of property, 31
days after the completion of the notice requirements
outlined in Subsection c". There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED Amendment #2 which would make
language on Page 2, Line 15, consistent with the conceptual
Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to report CS HB 218 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 218 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note by
Department of Education and Early Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|