Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/23/2003 01:05 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 191-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Number 1565 CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 191, "An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management program and to policies and procedures for consistency reviews and the rendering of consistency determinations under that program; relating to the functions of coastal resource service areas; creating an Alaska Coastal Program Evaluation Council; eliminating the Alaska Coastal Policy Council; annulling certain regulations relating to the Alaska coastal management program; relating to actions based on private nuisance; relating to zoning within a third class borough covered by the Alaska coastal management program; and providing for effective dates." [The bill was sponsored by the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor.] CHAIR FATE indicated the committee aide was obtaining copies of a new proposed committee substitute (CS) labeled 03-0069 bil2.doc, 4/22/2003, 1:30 pm., which he said tries to meet some of the problems articulated by committee members, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), and the governor's staff. He asked Marty Rutherford to explain the changes that resulted from this cooperative effort. Number 1475 MARTY RUTHERFORD, Consultant to the Administration and to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), informed the committee that the Senate Resources Standing Committee would be considering the companion bill that afternoon. She noted that available to answer questions were Breck Tostevin of the Department of Law; Patrick Galvin, currently with DNR's Division of Oil & Gas, but formerly the director of the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC), which used to house the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP); and Randy Bates, the newly appointed coastal program coordinator in the ACMP. The committee took an at-ease from 2:28 p.m. to 2:29 p.m. Number 1324 MS. RUTHERFORD drew attention to a one-page synopsis dated April 21, 2003, which she said is generic in nature and little different from the one members saw the previous week; an updated timeline dated April 21, 2003, which reflects changes in the new proposed CS; an updated chart that compares the new proposed CS with the existing coastal management program; an updated sectional analysis [dated April 23, 2003]; and one sheet that discusses changes between last week's proposed CS [dated 4/12/2003] and the new one [dated 4/22/2003]. Number 1240 MS. RUTHERFORD highlighted changes in the new proposed CS. She told members: Section 3 adds the word "maintenance" of an improved district plan as eligible for funding assistance. This change was requested by the Alaska Municipal League and the coastal districts. ... Section 11 includes very specific statutory references to what was intended as DEC's [the Department of Environmental Conservation's] air, land, and water quality requirements. This change was requested by Doug Mertz on behalf of the Prince William Sound RCAC [Regional Citizens' Advisory Council]; they were indicating they were concerned about the broadness of the air, land, and water quality references. Section 12, which is also on page 8, extends the required renewal period of district plans from five to ten years. Also, this change was requested by the Alaska Municipal League and the ... coastal districts. Section 13, which is on ... page 9, removes the addition of the term "unduly" in the type of restrictions a district plan can impose on a use of state concern. This was requested by Chairman Fate, and I believe Representative [Seaton] had some concerns about that word as well, earlier. Section 14, which is on page 10: there are several changes to this section. It amends AS 46.40.070, which sets up the requirement for department review and approval of district plans. It ... changes the introduction from "The department may approve", which is a discretionary action, [for] a district plan meeting the requirements of (a)(1) and (2), to "The department shall approve" a district plan if the commissioner ... finds that it meets the requirements. This change was requested by the Alaska Municipal League and the coastal districts. It also removes ... (a)(2)(B) as duplicative. I think several members on the committee requested that change, and we heard it also from the Alaska Municipal League and the coastal districts. It changes "geographic area within the coastal zone" in (a)(2)(D) to "a defined portion of a district's coastal zone". And it changes "identified" - and this change is in [(a)(2)(C)(i)] - ... to "demonstrated" as sensitive to development. ... Number 0981 MS. RUTHERFORD continued with changes in the new proposed CS: [Section 14 also] deletes the phrase "or contemplated" from (a)(2)(C)(ii) as redundant. We heard the concern about that from various parties as well. Also in Section 14, ... line 28, ... (a)(2)(C)(iii), it adds "local" [before] "usage" to clarify that a matter of local concern must, among other requirements, involve local usage or scientific evidence. This change was requested by ... Chairman Fate. There is one error on your sheet. The next reference to Section 19 should say Section 20. ... Section 20 is on page 12. It changes "interested parties" to "affected parties" in [the] list of persons from whom DNR requests consistency review comments. This change was requested by Chairman Fate. In Section 21, which is on page 13, it revises the lead-ins to (1)(A) and (B) and revised (B), to reflect the listing of statutes instead of the simple term "air, land, and water quality" in AS 46.40.040(b). And, again, the intent is to ensure that the definition of "air, land, and water quality" is quite specific. Number 0810 MS. RUTHERFORD continued with changes: Section 22 amends new subsection (k), which is on page 13, governing the scope of a consistency review to add "that are located". The administration thought that there was ... lack of clarity there, so we added those words [ourselves]. New subsection (m), ... page 14, adds the requirement that DNR establish in regulation the state resource agency permits and federal permits that trigger a consistency review. It also adds new subsections (n) and (o), which [establish] a 90-day deadline for completing consistency reviews. And it adds a new ... subsection (p), ... which expressly states that a final consistency determination may not be held up by a DEC or other permit excluded under AS 46.40.096(g). Section 43, ... on page 21, adds a definition of "project" from 6 AAC 50, which are newly promulgated regulations dealing with consistency reviews, so it's consistent with the current regulations. Section 46(b), which is on page 22, ... adds clarifying language that the ... former [Alaska] Coastal Policy Council's regulations implementing the coastal management program remain in effect until DNR adopts new regulations or they are annulled under Section 45, whichever occurs first. This was done in order to provide [assurance] that Representative Kerttula and her office requested. And Section 47, which is on page 23, is a transitional provision requiring revised ... district coastal management plans; [it] now gives all coastal districts one year after DNR adopts new regulations for the statewide standards or until July 1, 2005, whichever is later, to submit revised district plans. And, again, this was requested by the Alaska Municipal League, the coastal districts, and Chairman Fate. Number 0565 CHAIR FATE reopened public testimony. He announced his intention to move the bill from committee at the next hearing. Number 0464 DANA OLSON testified that she lives in the Matanuska-Susitna coastal district. She indicated she'd asked the Legislative Information Office (LIO) to fax an article titled "Chicago Biosphere Reserve Considered by Steering Committee," dated April 2, 2003, from the Paragon Foundation's The Powerhouse, reprinted with permission of the Property Rights Foundation of America. She told members this legislation fails to consider that the U.S. Man and [Biosphere] Program under the U.S. Department of State reviews and approves nominations for the U.S. before forwarding them to the UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] headquarters in Paris for formal consideration; it also fails to consider that curtailing the existing political processes in Alaska will result in having no access for submitting nominations for this. MS. OLSON said this establishes "criteria of urban interface"; she cited the lawsuit over the Miller's Reach fire as an example of intergovernmental agreements and policy relating to that interface issue. Suggesting members need to address that, she explained, "This 1970 Act does give us legal standing to go in and create nominations, whether or not you feel that you can curtail our political process or not." She said AS 46.03.040 is the requirement for an environmental plan that never has been implemented. She added, "Negotiated rule making does not provide for nominations. And it's anticipated that I will probably make recommendations for nominations. And it may impact your rule making, your permitting, while that process is ongoing." Number 0179 MS. OLSON observed that people often think only wilderness can be put under such a designation, but she said that isn't true. She told members: Where there's been no consideration whatsoever on shallow gas, natural gas, impacts to the local communities, I asked ... my local coastal district, the Mat-Su Borough, to provide me, under a Freedom of Information Act, the impact of that type of activity, and they've not yet provided it to me. And, two, I've asked that the Mat-Su Borough also respond when I made a request for a permit standard that would allow a citizen group to determine whether or not the notice requirement that is required under the Alaska constitution is being met, and that be a permanent part of ... their administrative process or their coastal district program, and they have not yet responded on that. MS. OLSON concluded by saying she didn't feel this issue had been looked at in its entirety, and asked that members do so. Number 0040 MIKE MILLIGAN told members his comments would be of a general nature. He noted that he'd served on the borough assembly in Kodiak. TAPE 03-34, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. MILLIGAN recalled that through working with coastal zone management, [the assembly] was able to craft a solution that enabled them to express how they wanted to see oil-related development occur in the borough. He said: From that, we were able to set various parameters, not the least of which was how we wanted to tax oil. We were able to work with industry, and our ... borough mayor at the time eventually got on the outer continental shelf council and became a chairman for Arctic Power. So I think ... there seems to be a predilection that there is some development that's not occurring because of regulations. My view is that development occurs when the regulations are good and adhered to. I see no advantage for resource development in decreasing the power of local governments to participate in this process. If you were to look at an area that's overregulated, ... that would be Europe. And if you go look at Europe right now, you look at the environmental regulations, particularly in regards to timber, and you will see a much higher level of regulation. We are not timbering right now because of markets. If you go to Fairbanks, you go to Anchorage, and even probably Juneau - certainly here in Kodiak, you can go to Spenard's, you can go to Home Depot - you can buy European forest products in those stores right here in Alaska. You can't buy Alaskan products. And it's not because of regulations; it's because of markets. If you want this resource development to occur, then you need to look at ways to develop those resources, ways that are happening through the [Alaska Science and Technology Foundation]. Do not circumvent ... the role of local government; ... I strongly encourage you to keep local government involved in this matrix. Number 0248 BOB SHAVELSON, Executive Director, Cook Inlet Keeper, who'd testified at the previous hearing, added that the timeline provided in the materials circulated by the administration doesn't appear to provide any conditions for an environmental impact statement (EIS), which likely would be required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for such sweeping changes to the state's program. He said this implicates not only the zero fiscal note attached to this legislation, but also the timeline for implementation. MR. SHAVELSON noted that his organization has more than 500 members throughout Southcentral Alaska. He expressed concern that the bill will deal a significant blow to local communities that seek to have some type of local oversight with regard to local-resource decisions. Section 14 of the bill will make it virtually impossible for a local coastal district to have in place an enforceable policy that doesn't conflict with state criteria or law; thus it will disenfranchise those local communities from regulating their resources. MR. SHAVELSON expressed hope that in order to truly get an understanding of the effects of this legislation, committee members will ask the administration to come forward with a dozen or so examples of enforceable policies, based on specific facts and related to coastal districts, that would "sustain through the very convoluted and legalistic criteria that's laid out in Section 14." Number 0438 BRECK TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, responded to Mr. Shavelson with regard to the necessity for an EIS. He stated: It's our understanding on this legislation that that would not be required, that ... these changes would be done incrementally as routine plan changes. They would be reviewed by ... the federal NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] agency, OCRM [Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management], and that it would not require that kind of delay. MS. RUTHERFORD added: I would note that in the third year after the Department of Natural Resources does the promulgation of new statewide standards and the following year, during which the local plans are updated, ... there is a third year identified for working the OCRM process as well. And we will be proceeding incrementally on those sort of mundane changes that are already laid out and effective immediately, with OCRM, during that time as well. Number 0534 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether OCRM has stated that it will be a routine plan change and that there won't be anything more onerous required for the state. MR. TOSTEVIN replied: We've had discussions with OCRM. They ... can't, at this point, ... guarantee that ... it's a routine plan change or a minor amendment. But they're not indicating that this is the kind of, quote, new program - a wholesale revision - that would be triggered under the prior version. So ... I think that the [word] that we're getting from them is that this is going to be much more of [an] amendment of the current program or routine plan change, as opposed to a wholesale reapproval of a new plan. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, however, whether OCRM in fact won't be able to give that kind of guarantee until it sees what the legislature does with this. She said she'd barely made it through [the new proposed CS], and surmised that it had only reached Washington, D.C., the previous night. MS. RUTHERFORD responded: That is correct. ... We really don't know. And, frankly, what my expectation is, is that ... since we're not changing the structure of the program - that fundamentally the districts will continue and ... the basic shape of the program will continue - that ... that will be routine program changes. ... But I do think that as the department and the districts begin to rewrite the standards, ... there will be a more substantive review by OCRM. ... And whether that ends up being routine or not will be determined by the federal OCRM. But we have built in time to address that as well, as part of the process. Number 0703 REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, referred to Section 14 and said he is hard-pressed to figure out whether any local enforceable policies can be written. He also expressed concern that local ordinances that are adopted won't be able to be enforced. He said it seems there will be [major] structural impacts upon the coastal zone. MR. TOSTEVIN suggested looking at the big picture as far as the ordinances and said: This legislation does not affect the powers of municipalities to enact zoning ... within their own boundaries. They have that right now, the zoning authority. There's actually a savings clause in the CS that says this doesn't affect ... the zoning power of Title 29, municipalities or boroughs. ... With respect to the coastal program, what the coastal program does is allow municipalities or boroughs ... and [Coastal Resource Service Areas (CRSAs)], coastal districts, to enact ... enforceable policies to apply to the state where they wouldn't ordinarily apply, ... and also to the federal government where they wouldn't ordinarily apply. So the legislation ... is requiring that to impose those additional enforceable policies that meet ... those tests in ... Section 14. Number 0860 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether it's the case, however, that the requirements in Section 14 preclude almost any local enforceable policies. He requested that the administration come forward before the next hearing with perhaps six local enforceable policies from any coastal district that would meet the criteria in the bill. MS. RUTHERFORD replied: We'll be glad to do that. And I know that there have been other districts that have suggested that ... one of the most helpful exercises ... might be for Department of Natural Resources to identify problem enforceable policies within ... the various district plans. And I think that that might be a useful ... exercise, and I think that the department's looking seriously at that. We'll be glad to develop some examples. I might note, though, ... it's a matter of perspective. ... I still get a lot of comments from a lot of the development community that they are concerned about how broad this is. ... The language here, in their opinion, is too broad. And literally they've said that it's large enough to drive a truck through, whereas the districts are saying it's smaller than a breadbox and nothing can be approved through it. The reality is that I think ... it is in balance. I think that it does limit a duplication of existing standards ... and it does require ... that the drafting of the new enforceable policies be done with an eye towards more prescriptive and more precise -- and be more substantiated. But I think it certainly does allow for them, and we'll try to show that to you. Number 1002 JACK CUSHING, Mayor, City of Homer, informed members that he has been on the Alaska Coastal Policy Council representing lower Cook Inlet since about 1996. A civil engineer, he said he'd worked on the Alyeska pipeline and the Northwest Alaskan pipeline during the planning phases. He told members: I'm afraid what's happening here is you're opening up a bigger can of worms than what you might be solving. I think that the program ... was up and going and smooth after years of work on it, and I think by the time you get thing rewritten, you're going to find that you've ... opened up a whole lot of new doors and it's going to be ready almost for immediate modification just about the time it takes to get this to where we are right now. I think we're going to possibly be jeopardizing funding during this interim time, just in the manner we're talking about. If nothing else, the elimination of the Alaska Coastal Policy Council: that was perceived by the people of the state as an intermediary board to go to, during the petition process, that had elected citizens on it as well as the administrative folks. And I think a lot of people held off going into court just because they felt, well, ... if they had a chance to go by these nine elected officials and they heard what the comments were, they got their input, that ... they could live with the determination that was made. When I looked at the number of projects that actually got stopped, that got turned down, ... it's pathetically few. And the few that did get input at the coastal policy council level, I think, came out better for it. Number 1155 LISA VON BARGEN, Community & Economic Development, City of Valdez, thanked [Ms. Rutherford] and others at DNR for considering comments in reworking the proposed CS. However, she expressed concern with Section 39, page 19, subsection (2)(C), "home rule and first class cities of the unorganized borough or within boroughs that do not exercise planning and zoning authority". She suggested it is vague as to whether that means "home rule and first class cities that do not or do exercise planning and zoning authority". Thus she asked that after the words "unorganized borough" there be a comma added and that it then read: "or within home rule and first class cities within boroughs that do not exercise planning and zoning authority". She thanked participants for their hard work. [Chair Fate called upon Lawrence Widmark and June Kegnan, who'd signed up to testify at the Sitka LIO, but there was no response.] Number 1287 NANCY HILLSTRAND, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries, spoke in opposition to HB 191. She told members: I think that it's time that we stopped being afraid of regulations that give us some structure in planning. We're in business. We've been a corporation for 40 years here in Alaska. And the structure and delays and all the different stopgaps that allow us to run as a business have saved us from making extremely costly mistakes. And HB 191 takes the crucial oversight of local communities out of the democratic process. And I just wonder why this administration is afraid of a healthy tension of democracy. It just seems as though that's what we're looking at here. ... Our corporation relies on policy that sustains fisheries. Habitat sustains fish. And the community and most other coastal communities rely on the oversight needed from this policy to create a level of planning to minimize "oops." "Oops" is when we make costly mistakes because of lack of ... conscientious, meaningful debate. "Oops" causes extremely expensive restoration. And I wonder: are we willing to be responsible to pay this price in the future? Thank heavens for delays, because it's really important for us to have good debate and good, conscientious oversight, because that way, we won't have to pay in the future. And so, I thank you very kindly, and I'm against [HB] 191. Number 1380 MARV SMITH, Coastal Zone Coordinator, Lake & Peninsula Borough, thanked Ms. Rutherford and the DNR staff for listening to and incorporating earlier testimony. However, he voiced concerns with Section 14, specifically, the ability for local districts to have some control over how they implement changes in their plans. He said it seems DNR still has too much control over how that can happen effectively. Referring to sub-subparagraph (2)(C)(i), he therefore suggested "demonstrated" should be changed back to "identified". MR. SMITH turned attention to Section 22 and the 90 days to get a coastal consistency review completed. He asked: If we ... do not have all the information we need to effectively do a consistency review, is that 90 days' clock still [ticking]? Will ... the clock stop? Because if that's the case, then we'll be forced to [be] inconsistent with the consistency review. We just need to know: the 90-day rule, is it from start to finish or whatever? It's vague in how it's worded; I think it should be clarified a little better in that category because it could make ... far more ability of us to do a better job. If we've got a good product to begin with and we can do a good consistency review, we like to do those. And we want to do them on time, and we agree with the administration's policies on getting them done timely in all manner, and we try, every effort we can, to do that. Also, another concern ... is that if we do have to do all these plans and go through the public hearings, ... the recent budget cuts [are] going to drastically affect our ability to do them in a timely manner. Just going to places like Chignik, ... from King Salmon it's a $500 plane ticket for one person; additionally, if you go to the northern parts of our borough where you [have] to charter an airplane, it's almost a thousand dollars. ... You can fly to ... the Lower 48 cheaper than you can fly ... to some portions of our borough to make these meetings. So it's going to be very costly [for] us to do that. Number 1547 MR. SMITH referred to discussion in a previous hearing. He asked that instead of [districts] having to rewrite their plans completely, time should be taken to help them identify what is needed to make the plans meet the needs of the administration. He suggested this would be much more effective. Number 1576 JOHN OSCAR, Program Director, Ceñaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area Board, who'd testified at the previous hearing, referred to Section 29 and questioned the relationship of the state constitution to these bills. Where the federal government requires equal treatment in the coastal zone communities, only the municipalities in these bills can be represented in the makeup of [the proposed] Alaska Coastal Program Evaluation Council. If the traditional, primary governments are to be included in these bills, does this also provide the state's recognition in the existence of these traditional governments? Two, would these traditional governments be also considered as affected parties? And, third, ... there's no fiscal note attached with these bills. It will also cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide for the rewrite of all 33 coastal districts' [plans] in Alaska. We are already [short] of funds. But how is the state going to adequately provide for these public hearings? Number 1674 DANIEL BEVINGTON, Coastal District Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula Borough, told members: The borough has a long history of support for its coastal program; it goes back more than two decades. We've found that the coordinated review of permitting under the ACMP has helped us manage our resources and expedite development, which benefits the applicant, our communities, ... and the environment. A good example of this is the Kenai gas pipeline that's well underway. The legislation asserts that the local government should exert its own coastal management control through planning and zoning powers. At this time, it is our view that this would add an unneeded complexity and duplication, and ultimately slow down valuable economic development opportunities throughout the borough. We also concur with the comments made by ... Lake & Peninsula Borough. One crucial aspect of the bill proposal is the elimination of local district review of oil-spill prevention and contingency plans. Also, the bill removes the district from reviews of federal outer continental shelf [OCS] plans. On this first point, the lower Cook Inlet has ... [a] significant amount of activity requiring oil-spill ... plans. And presently the district reviews all those plans and participates when it's appropriate. On the second point, a great area of federal waters occurs within the boundaries of the Kenai Peninsula Borough in lower Cook Inlet, and the activities in that area could very well affect and significantly impact the resources and ... ultimately the [socioeconomic] well-being of our communities. So the issue of promoting economic development while balancing development interests with our long-term community interests is a complex ... subject which demands meaningful involvement of our communities across the state of Alaska, including the local districts. ... Number 1786 MR. BEVINGTON continued: At a minimum, the bill should assure that the local district has a seat at the table for oil-spill contingency plans and federal outer continental shelf plans. ... Also, we're very concerned with the elimination of the structure under the [Alaska] Coastal Policy Council structure, and believe that ... DNR should adopt some representative body which would allow that type of involvement of our communities in the planning for the Alaska Coastal Management Plan. Number 1825 REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked that Mr. Bevington call his office to talk about this. Number 1845 CHAIR FATE closed public testimony. Number 1865 MS. RUTHERFORD referred to concern about the DNR process and said: First of all, I want to assure people that DNR has probably the most expansive public process imbedded in statute, in regulation, and the [resultant] case law of any other agency. It exceeds the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] that is in place for most other agencies. And I might note that ... the commissioner of DNR regularly balances various interests as part of all their areawide planning exercises that they do. And that is something that is inherent in DNR's function. ... It's imbedded in their area-planning exercises, in their special-use designation development; it's imbedded in forest- timber sales, land sales, and oil and gas lease sales. So this balancing of interests that involves the public process will be part of what DNR does as they proceed [under] the new legislation. Another thing that I want to note is, this bill, again, does not eliminate the districts' place at the table. They will be at the table. They will have due deference on their enforceable policies. And that's something that the districts need to hear again, because it's important to them and we recognize that. Number 1938 MS. RUTHERFORD continued: The other thing that I think is important: Mr. Shavelson made a reference to the EIS process. One of the things that I think will bring a lot of comfort to the Office of [Ocean and] Coastal Resource Management ... is the fact that under this revised CS that replaced the original [HB] 191, statewide standards and local enforceable policies will continue. And those statewide standards are a comprehensive body of standards. Under the old bill, they were ... eliminated, and that would have been a major concern to OCRM. ... On the funding: the reason there's not fiscal notes associated with this bill is there are special project monies that are available to the coastal management program, and they will simply be refocused to help support the districts as they rewrite their plans or review their plans and rewrite their local enforceable policies. Again, hopefully, the department will be helping them to identify those truly problematic enforceable policies, instead of just having to sort of pick up the rock and see whether it's the right one. Number 1998 MS. RUTHERFORD continued: Regarding the 90-day clock, someone asked whether ... there was some additional opportunity. ... It is a comprehensive timeframe, except if there is an elevation. ... It does provide for a 45-day elevation. However, this has been an issue that has been focused on by Alaska Municipal League, and we're trying to see whether or not there is a way to provide them some comfort. I would note something, however, that under ... the federal law there are already timeframes in place that very closely mimic what was in this bill, now, in the new sections, that for federal activities there is a 60-day clock: if, in fact, the state doesn't act within that ... 60-day ... clock, then an activity is presumed consistent. ... For federally regulated activities, it's a six-month clock. And, frankly, 80 percent of all projects that are reviewed under the coastal management consistency review program are subject to one of these ... federal clocks. So I think that's ... another important piece to it. And, finally, ... I want to assure Dan Bevington and the Kenai Peninsula Borough that ... the program as it's currently laid out in this bill does allow for OCS enforceable policies. It's one of the primary concerns of this administration, and it is protected. And we want to assure you that ... those [kinds] of enforceable policies are allowed. Number 2082 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern that although the OCS may be included, there is a definite change with regard to "how we're dealing with DEC standards"; that the program is only continued for a couple of years while everything else is put in place; and about the language that says "we continue only if it's not inconsistent with the Act." She highlighted the number of issues remaining. [HB 191 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|