Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/09/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 6(JUD)
"An Act relating to the regulation and production of
industrial hemp; relating to industrial hemp pilot
programs; providing that industrial hemp is not
included in the definition of 'marijuana'; and
clarifying that adding industrial hemp to food does
not create an adulterated food product."
1:33:58 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee had heard the
bill twice the previous session. He intended to hear public
testimony and consider amendments. He asked to hear from
the bill sponsor and the sponsor of the House companion
bill HB 172.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND, introduced herself and
read from a prepared statement:
House Bill 172 allows for a pilot program for
cultivation of industrial hemp in the state of Alaska.
Section 76.06 of the federal Agricultural Act of 2014
allows for a pilot program to operate in the states to
monitor the cultivation, harvesting, and marketing of
industrial hemp. Hemp is a very diverse product that
has the potential to be successful in multiple
markets, including agriculture, textiles, automotive,
and livestock feed to name just a few. Senate Bill 6
by Senator Hughes is only slightly different from my
bill, but I'm here to assure all members of the
committee that it meets the intent of House Bill 172.
Hemp cultivation will benefit Alaskans no matter what
political party they align with. That's why I fully
support the movement of Senate Bill 6 and will help in
any way I can to make sure Alaska's hopeful hemp
harvesters can get to the fields as soon as possible.
Thank you.
1:36:15 PM
SENATOR SHELLEY HUGHES, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for
hearing SB 6. She noted that the bill had last been heard
in May [2017]. She detailed that the idea had been brought
to her by farmers in her district, who at the time had been
very interested in legislation sponsored by former Senator
Johnny Ellis. The issue had been discussed at town hall
meetings and she had reintroduced it two years back. She
was delighted to have Representative Drummond's support
with HB 172.
Senator Hughes explained the bill would remove hemp from
the marijuana statutes and would define it as having less
than 0.3 percent THC, meaning it held no psychoactive
qualities. Some of the early drafts of the Declaration of
Independence had been drafted on hemp paper. Additionally,
hemp had been used to make sails for boats traveling to
America and for covered wagons. She elaborated that some of
the country's founding fathers had hemp fields. In 1937 the
Marijuana Act had been introduced - cotton had been on the
rise and there had been a push to use wood for paper. As a
result, hemp had taken a back seat and was categorized as
illegal. The bill would fix the issue. The Farm Act in 2014
had paved the way for the change. She believed 29 states
were currently on board. She thanked the Division of
Agriculture and others for their work. She noted her staff
was available for further detail.
Co-Chair Foster recognized individuals available for
questions.
1:39:58 PM
Vice-Chair Gara supported the bill. He knew there had been
a change in federal policy on marijuana prosecutions from
the new federal administration. He remarked there was
statute that allowed [the cultivation of hemp). His
understanding was that even though policy on marijuana
prosecutions had taken place, policy could not be shifted
on hemp prosecutions. He asked if his understanding was
accurate.
Senator Hughes believed it was true. She detailed the issue
emphasized the need for the passage of the bill in order to
separate hemp from marijuana. She did not believe the bill
was in violation of federal statute. The bill was compliant
with federal statute and had grown in length because of
federal law passed in 2014.
1:41:26 PM
ROBERT HARR, HARR TECHNOLOGIES, KENAI (via teleconference),
testified in favor of the legislation. He shared that he
had ranches in Colorado and in Alaska. He was a patent
developer and innovator. He spoke about a study and patents
he had done related to degrading infrastructure. He spoke
about his involvement in the development of hemp products
in the past year. There were numerous unique applications
for hemp. He shared that he had provided written testimony
and a document. His patents used hemp fiber to add strength
to products. He had alliance members who wanted to use hemp
worldwide. He shared that it was a trillion dollar industry
and would bring substantial money into Alaska.
Mr. Harr provided further examples about the use of hemp
products. He wanted to see Alaska more involved in the
agricultural side - he believed the product was more
sustainable than gas and oil because it was not stock
market driven. He continued to address various uses for
hemp.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that public testimony could be
submitted in writing.
1:46:27 PM
AMY SEITZ, ALASKA FARM BUREAU, SOLDOTNA (via
teleconference), testified in favor of the legislation. She
discussed the rise of agriculture production in Alaska. The
number of farms, the variety of agricultural products, and
demand for local products were increasing. She believed
everyone should be looking for ways to assist in expanding
the agriculture industry; it would benefit the economy and
the state's sustainability. The bill would set up a pilot
program to study the growth, cultivation, and marketing of
industrial hemp. She detailed that hemp had been a staple
crop for a long time in the U.S. until it had been
reclassified as a controlled substance in the 1970s. She
shared that hemp was one of the most versatile natural
fibers with over 25,000 different uses from food and fiber
to construction and cosmetics. She referenced questions
about the viability of a hemp crop in Alaska and explained
that without the passage of SB 6 no one would find out. The
retail value in the U.S. was over $600 million. Alaska
currently had to import raw hemp material because it was
not legal to grow in-state (some states were now allowing
hemp as an agricultural crop). She discussed uses of hemp
including animal feed, bedding, and rotation crops for soil
supplement. Hemp is also a prolific pollinator, which could
help the honey bee industry and other pollinators in
Alaska. She reasoned that even if it took time to build
infrastructure, there were many uses for the raw material.
She believed everyone should be looking for ways to expand
the agriculture industry in Alaska. She urged support for
the bill.
1:49:00 PM
JOHN BRADING, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the legislation. He wanted to amend the bill
to allow small scale gardeners to grow the crop for
personal use on their own property. He explained it was
possible to convert hemp oil into biodiesel - it was a
cleaner burning fuel made from vegetable oil or industrial
hemp oil. He provided detail about biodiesel oil - more
oxygen meant the oil burned cleaner. Any diesel equipment
could run on biodiesel - cars, boats, tractors, generators,
and heating oil. He stressed the need for cleaner heating
options especially in areas like Fairbanks and Mat-Su with
air pollution problems. He shared that biodiesel reduced
carbon dioxide by 78 percent, carbon monoxide by 50
percent, hydrocarbons by 70 percent, and sulfur dioxide by
100 percent. He stated that sulfur dioxide still existed in
regular diesel, which was one of the causes of PM2.5 [air
pollution]. Hemp oil contained simple organic non-toxic,
biodegradable compounds. He continued to discuss the
benefits of hemp oil as a clean fuel source.
1:52:48 PM
GERSHON COHEN, SELF, HAINES (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. He shared that his infant
granddaughter had been diagnosed with a form of epilepsy
and the long-term prognosis was dire for many individuals
with the diagnosis. He shared that they had started her on
a variety of harsh anti-seizure medicines. He had a
background in biochemistry and molecular biology and had
done significant research on CBD (cannabidiol), a
derivative of industrial hemp because he had heard it was
as good or better than many prescribed pharmaceuticals at
reducing or eliminating epileptic seizures with no side
effects. The family decided to ween his granddaughter off
of the other drugs and kept her on CBD for seizure control;
about one month later she had started to change. She was
now walking without assistance.
Mr. Cohen shared numerous details about his granddaughter's
progress. They had not witnessed any seizures for 26 months
after beginning to use CBD. The substance was also being
used by veterans for post-traumatic stress disorder. He
noted that for this reason Congressmen Young had become the
founding co-chair of the cannabis caucus about one year
back. The American Legion had passed two resolutions in
2016 for the full legalization of CBD and medical marijuana
because the substances had significantly helped numerous
veterans. He spoke to other medical issues the substance
helped with including multiple sclerosis and treating
chronic pain. The greatest proof of CBD's ability to
address the disorders was that the drug companies were
scrambling to create a synthetic CBD.
1:58:19 PM
Co-Chair Foster reiterated the House Finance Committee
email address.
FRANK TURNEY, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of the legislation. He supported the testimony of
previous speakers. He shared that since the early 1990s he
had been educating people on industrial hemp. He
acknowledged individuals in the region for their work on
the issue. He hoped farmers were given the "green" light to
grow industrial hemp. He stressed that hemp had been around
for thousands of years. He thanked Representative Thompson
for getting hemp rolling at the University. He mentioned
desire to fix federal regulations because hemp seed was
needed in Alaska.
2:01:11 PM
COURTNEY MORAN, INDUSTRIAL HEMP ATTORNEY, EARTHLAW LLC,
WASHINGTON D.C. (via teleconference), testified in support
of the legislation and the amendments. She confirmed that
SB 6 was aligned with the intent of HB 172. She was honored
to work with the sponsors and their staff in the drafting
of the legislation, which complied with the federal
Agricultural Act of 2014. The bill established the
regulatory framework to provide for successful industrial
hemp programs for farmers, manufacturers, and agricultural
businesses throughout Alaska. She mentioned a memo that did
not change state or federal law; it only applied to the
guidance given to federal prosecutors in regard to
marijuana enforcement - it did not apply to industrial
hemp. She stated that the Agricultural Act of 2014, was
federal statutory law defining industrial hemp distinct
from marijuana and protecting industrial hemp growth,
cultivation, and marketing.
Ms. Moran continued that the omnibus appropriations
provision and the exemptions provided in the definition for
marijuana under the controlled substances act provided
federal authority for the implementation of state
industrial hemp programs. The bill would establish an
industrial hemp pilot program in Alaska. She provided
further detail. She supported an amendment [yet to be
offered] that would ensure a sustainable program and
successful implementation. With the bill's passage, Alaska
would join 34 other states in legalizing industrial hemp.
In 2017, 19 states had cultivated industrial hemp. She
thanked the committee for its support for the legislation.
2:04:09 PM
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to page 3, line 4, subsection (d)
related to establishing isolation distances for the
production of industrial hemp. He was trying to determine
the purpose of the isolation distance. He wondered if
industrial hemp could be a way to delegitimize permits for
cultivation of cannabis for other purposes. He wondered if
there could be a conflict in the law and disallow
previously permitted cannabis cultivation.
Ms. Moran replied the provision was included because of the
concern for potential cross pollination between industrial
hemp and marijuana. She elaborated that Washington had set
a four-mile isolation distance between the two types of
cultivation. She furthered the issue had been dealt with in
Oregon over the past four years where responsible, friendly
farming had been encouraged. They had worked to ensure that
industrial hemp farmers planting in a sensitive area with
marijuana cannabis cultivation, only planted female plants
and non-feminized seed to avoid cross pollination. Canada
had a certified seed program with certified seed,
foundational seed, and registered seed; its minimum
distance buffers were set at 5 kilometers or 3.1 miles,
which had been very successful. The goal was to ensure
there were no negative impacts on industrial hemp farmers
or marijuana growers. It was about collaboration and
responsible, friendly farming.
2:07:37 PM
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that the state had issued permits
for the cultivation of marijuana in Alaska. He wondered if
the isolation zone would prevent industrial hemp from being
grown 3.5 to 4 miles from a marijuana cultivation facility.
Alternatively, he wondered whether it would prevent
marijuana cultivation within 4 miles of industrial hemp
crops.
Ms. Moran asked for verification that Co-Chair Seaton was
questioning whether the bill would limit the hemp growers
or the marijuana growers.
Co-Chair Seaton replied in the affirmative. He wondered
which grower would be limited if an isolation zone was
required. He asked if hemp could not be grown within 4
miles of a marijuana growing operation or a marijuana
growing permit could not be within 4 miles of an industrial
hemp crop.
Ms. Moran replied that the marijuana program had been
implemented first; therefore, she believed the marijuana
growers would have deference over the industrial hemp
growers. She clarified the bill would still allow the
cultivation of industrial hemp within an isolation zone as
long as the crop was limited to female plants to avoid the
risk of pollen. The aim of the provision was to establish a
distance - she thought research could determine what the
actual isolation distance needed to be for a particular
region or area. She believed Rob Carter with the Division
of Agriculture had the authority to establish rules on the
subject.
Co-Chair Seaton stated he would follow up with Mr. Carter.
He believed the question needed to be on record because the
provision would be statutory.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that there had been
quite a bit of conversation on the issue during the
previous bill hearing. He agreed it was a major concern.
2:10:49 PM
EMBER HAYNES, SELF, TALKEETNA (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She and her husband owned
the Denali Hemp Company and Silverbear Sundries. She
detailed they infused oils with wild crafted and homegrown
plants. They had been importing legal hempseed oil to
incorporate for the past ten years - their goal was to
utilize Alaskan grown and processed hemp as they did in
their other balms and products. They raised livestock on
their property and hemp cultivated on their own land could
be used for animal bedding and food. Hemp was sustainable,
and the entire plant could be utilized. She elaborated that
one acre of hemp could produce 600 to 2,000 pounds of seed,
50 to 100 gallons of oil, and 2 to 5 tons of fiber stock.
She shared that it would supplement her business. She
represented Alaskans who lived a self-sustaining lifestyle.
Ms. Haynes associated herself with others with small-scale
plans who would like to participate in the pilot program.
She continued that Alaska was a vast state with many micro
climates and myriad potential uses for hemp. She believed
farmers and non-farmers could be successful and find their
own niche. She understood there was a concern with staffing
and administering too many applications. She suggested that
perhaps more fees with more applicants would allow for more
staff. She appreciated the Division of Agriculture's
mission to help Alaskans succeed. Agricultural hemp was a
hot market - Alaskans had been successful with other
alternative agriculture such as peony farming and birch
products, fisheries, crafters, and other; the same could be
true for hemp. She spoke to keeping the fees at the minimum
level needed to run a successful hemp industry. She
implored the committee to pass the bill.
Representative Kawasaki asked if Ms. Haynes had stated she
currently produced hash oil from imported hemp.
Ms. Haynes answered in the negative. She explained she used
legal hempseed oil (with less than a trace, if any, THC)
that anyone could purchase. She elaborated they used the
oil just as they would olive oil, avocado oil, and other to
get all of the properties out of herbs like yarrow and
devil's club. She underscored there was no hashish oil
being made.
2:15:05 PM
ED MARTIN, SELF, COOPER LANDING (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He believed the bill was long
overdue. He opined that the benefits of industrial hemp
would help Alaska's economy and would create jobs. He
encouraged passing the bill immediately in order to enable
crops to be grown in the coming summer.
2:16:18 PM
DENNIS WADE, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), testified in
favor of the legislation. The bill would enable Alaskan
farmers to turn the product into a profit. He acknowledged
it would take several years to begin making paper products
and woven garments. He spoke about the use of hemp oil for
health purposes. He noted that hemp was cultivated at a
latitude above Nome in Europe; therefore, he believed it
could be grown virtually anywhere in Alaska. He reasoned it
could be useful for rural communities to use hemp for
diesel fuel, to build structures, and for insulation. He
thanked the bill sponsors and the committee. He had heard
testimony the previous year considering whether a person
could get high from cooking the product down. He stated it
was a ridiculous conversation. He elaborated on the issue.
He asked the committee to pass the bill.
2:18:32 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Seaton directed his earlier question related to
isolation distances between industrial hemp and a licensed
marijuana growing facility to the Division of Agriculture.
He wondered if the isolation distances could impact
permitted marijuana growers or areas where industrial hemp
could be grown.
ROB CARTER, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (via teleconference), replied there were general
agronomic practices that were sometimes lost in translation
when it came to statute. He stated that isolation distances
were set for hundreds of agricultural crops worldwide. He
continued that isolation distances were set for the seed
industry in Canada, Washington, Oregon, and other. He
clarified that individuals growing industrial hemp for the
product itself, would not be affected by isolation
distances. Good farming practices existed in order to
prevent one industry from disturbing another. He addressed
Co-Chair Seaton's question about which industry would be
impacted by the potential of cross pollination. The impact
would be on recreational cannabis if industrial hemp pollen
was transferred and pollination occurred.
Mr. Carter clarified that isolation distances were set for
the seed industry (seed classes such as breeder,
foundation, registered, or seed). If a person was concerned
that hemp would cross pollinate with recreational marijuana
or vice versa, the genetic degradation of the crop would be
seen until the following year when the seed crop was
harvested, planted, and grown. The isolation distances
within the pilot program would be set for the seed
producers. Additionally, some good agricultural practices
would be recommended and suggested to all program
participants to grow only female crops if they were within
a selected area where registered recreational marijuana
growers may be located.
2:23:11 PM
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to ensure there was a well-
established legislative record that the provision could not
be used by someone growing industrial hemp to impact the
permit of a marijuana cultivation activity. He was in full
support of industrial hemp, but he wanted to ensure the
isolation distance would not preclude the operation of a
marijuana cultivation facility because it was the same
variety or species. He wanted the intent clearly on the
record. He asked for clarification from Mr. Carter that
industrial hemp would not impact the cultivation approval
license for marijuana.
Mr. Carter replied that he did not see how it would be
physiologically possible for the transmittal of pollen from
industrial hemp to null and void any of the current or
future recreational cannabis registrants. He acknowledged
that the pollen transfer could degrade the future prodigy
of recreational marijuana. He believed the provision had
been included so that when the pilot program was defined -
working with the Alaska Marijuana Control Board and its
registrants - the agricultural producers interested in
industrial hemp seed production could be identified to make
sure good agronomic practices were provided to the
individuals to meet the needed isolation distance by
region. There were numerous environmental factors that
could increase or decrease the opportunity for cross
pollination between similar species. He believed it was
highly unlikely a person could affect anyone producing
either cannabis species.
2:26:28 PM
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that he was not talking about the
physiological action between the plants; he was speaking
about a regulatory restriction. He wanted to ensure
everyone understood that the isolation distance did not
restrict a cultivation permit.
Mr. Carter answered that there was no way the bill could
regulatorily impede anyone from applying for the pilot
program or a permit through the recreational side.
Representative Guttenberg recalled hearing that marijuana
cultivators were not concerned about seed production, but
about the possibility that the transfer of pollen could
destroy a crop. He asked if the concern was legitimate. He
believed it was part of the reason for isolation distances
implemented in Colorado, Alberta, and other.
Mr. Carter agreed there were concerns from recreational
growers that cross pollination from industrial hemp could
degrade recreational marijuana grown by current
registrants. He believed that the issues would be addressed
during the rules and regulations that would be outlined
from the law, to ensure that what one producer was doing
within the state was not impacting a producer in another
program regulated under the state system. There were
isolation distances set in Colorado where a large
recreational industry for other types of cannabis existed.
He explained that the issues would have to be taken into
consideration. The bill represented the generation of a
pilot program - applicants could be selected based on
region, size, and what the end-point products would be - to
enable the state to understand what the impacts could be on
other lines of business within the state. The program would
allow the state to gain the data to ensure it had a
successful industry on each side.
2:30:17 PM
Representative Kawasaki stated that the issue had arisen
the past session. He believed the committee had been
provided with materials specifying that pollen from
marijuana and hemp had been known to travel more than seven
miles. There was only one outdoor cultivation facility,
which was located in Fairbanks. The Fairbanks delegation
had been contacted about the concern that crops could
potentially be damaged as far as seven miles from adjacent
plots. He spoke to the establishment of fees for the
applications and registrations. He shared the committee
held recent hearings regarding fees for marijuana licensure
- fees were recouped from program participants. He looked
at the bill's zero fiscal note commencing in 2019. He
wondered what kind of fee schedule the committee could
anticipate. He surmised that there would be a cost
associated with starting the program. He stated that after
the department figured out the regulation cost, it may cost
additional money, but the cost would likely start to
decrease in future years. He asked what it would cost a
consumer to purchase a permit.
Mr. Carter answered there were many unknowns in the
question. There were a diverse range of program fees
nationally. The current fiscal note factored in building
the regulation and rules. The Division of Agriculture's
role was to support and promote agricultural production in
Alaska. He currently did not know what the cost would be.
The mission was to help grow an industry. Through the
regulatory process, the division would ensure the fees
would be covered and would begin to define the number of
participants. The higher the number of participants, the
lower the program cost would be over time. He could not
currently provide a number. It was the division's objective
to make the program as affordable as possible because it
was a good opportunity to increase agricultural production
in Alaska.
2:33:20 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if the division had enough
technical support to handle requests.
Mr. Carter replied in the affirmative. He acknowledged that
the crop had not been grown nationally or in Alaska in a
long time. He believed the division had the professional
and academic background to implement the pilot program and
make it successful for participants and the future growth
of the industry. He currently served on a national
industrial hemp regulatory committee that held quarterly
meetings. The majority of states currently producing
industrial hemp and the 34 other states in the process of
getting legislation passed were very willing to help with
the scientific process to make sure other agricultural
producers were protected, good quality products were grown,
and that the industry moved forward.
Representative Thompson pointed to a typo on page 2 of
fiscal note OMB Component Number 2204. He believed the
first sentence should read "conduct oversight of industrial
hemp" instead of the current language "conduct oversight of
industrial help." He asked for the correction to be made.
Representative Wilson asked why the fiscal note [OMB
Component Number 2204] had come from the House Finance
Committee and not the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). The note addressed that regulations would be drafted
and fees would apply to permittees. She wanted to ensure
the department realized it would be responsible for
collecting the fees and recouping the $10,000.
2:36:42 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
answered that DNR had prepared a fiscal note that requested
$25,000 of unrestricted general fund (UGF). The Senate
Finance Committee had written its own fiscal note, which
had reduced the amount to $10,000 and changed the fund
source to general fund program receipts to fund the cost
with fees; however, the fees would not come in until after
regulations were written. The House Finance Committee note
changed the fund source back to UGF and kept the amount at
$10,000.
Representative Wilson asked if there was a way to specify
the $10,000 would be paid back to UGF as the registration
fees came in. Alternatively, she wondered if the process
would be automatic. She likened the process to the method
used for marijuana permitting. She thought the funds should
turn to DGF as explained on the second page [of the fiscal
note].
Mr. Painter answered that in the future it would be
possible, but the startup costs needed to write the
regulations would require some general funds because the
fee schedule would not yet be in place. He believed the
intent was for program receipts to pay for the cost in the
future.
Representative Wilson pointed out that the fiscal note
specified that the money would be recovered.
Vice-Chair Gara surmised the fees that would come in later
were designated, but they were not really designated
because they would go into the General Fund.
Mr. Painter agreed. Any general fund program receipts could
be appropriated for any purpose.
2:38:54 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-LS0173\E.4
(Martin, 2/8/18) (copy on file):
Page 5, lines 22 - 25:
Delete "Industrial hemp produced under a registration
under this section may not be used to produce hashish,
hashish oil, or marijuana concentrates. In this
subsection, "hashish" and "hashish oil" have the
meanings given in AS l l.71.900, but do not include
cannabidiol oil."
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:39:20 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 30-LS0173\E.3
(Martin/Wayne, 2/6/18) (copy on file):
Page 7. line 11:
Delete "oil."
Insert "oil [.]"
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the five fiscal notes including
one zero fiscal note from the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (OMB Component Number
3119); one zero fiscal note from the Department of Law (OMB
Component Number 2202); two zero fiscal notes from the
Department of Public Safety (OMB Component Numbers 3052 and
527); and one fiscal impact note [by the House Finance
Committee] from the Department of Natural Resources for
$10,000 for the drafting and publication of regulations
(OMB Component Number 2204). He clarified that all
references to industrial help should read industrial hemp.
2:41:19 PM
Representative Wilson spoke to OMB Component Number 2204
related to the North Latitude Plant Materials Center. She
clarified the center was not responsible for writing the
regulations, which was included in a separate fiscal note
specifying the costs would be absorbed. She stated, "this
is just determined after regulations are drafted to
administer the program." She wondered if the $10,000 was
included on the wrong fiscal note.
Vice-Chair Gara agreed with Representative Wilson. The
center would enter into an RSA [reimbursable services
agreement] with the Department of Law to assist in the
drafting of regulations.
Representative Wilson clarified there were costs associated
with the bill that other departments specified they could
absorb. She noted that the program was not free.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 6(FIN) as amended
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CSSB 6(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new zero fiscal notes
from the Department of Public Safety; one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development; one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Law; and one fiscal impact note from the
House Finance Committee for the Department of Natural
Resources.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
week.
Representative Grenn applauded the sponsors on the bill.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 6 Version E - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 2/9/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 6 |
| SB6 testimony 2818.pdf |
HFIN 2/9/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 6 |
| SB 6 - Amendments 2 and 3.pdf |
HFIN 2/9/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 6 |
| SB 6 Letters of Support 2.9.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/9/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 6 |
| SB 6 Letter of support 2.9.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/9/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 6 |