Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/20/2001 03:40 PM STA
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 82-2001 REVISOR'S BILL PAM FINLEY, revisor of statutes, said HCR 5 is a "clean up bill" and suggestions come from bill drafters, the Executive Branch and the general public. Policy choices and political issues are, understandably, avoided. She referred to the State Affairs CS for the bill saying that it adds Section 21 and 23 to the bill to correct errors found after Legislative Council had their meeting. Section 23 gives a special effective date of July 1 because the section that it is amending doesn't take effect until July 1. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether those were new sections added to the bill and not problems with the original wording. MS. FINLEY said that is correct. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that his staff had conducted a lengthy sectional analysis, checked all the statutory references and found "nothing hidden." He noted that there was a zero fiscal note attached. MS. FINLEY said she was pleased to hear that. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for a motion to adopt the Senate State Affairs version of the bill. SENATOR PHILLIPS made the motion to adopt CS SB 82 (STA). CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for amendments to the working document and there were none. SENATOR HALFORD asked for an explanation of section 3. MS. FINLEY said that was the result of a mistake, by a revisor, in another revisor bill. "There were two bills changing the end of that spanned reference, (AS 16.05.330-16.05.) 723. I think it was (AS 16.05.) 700 and there were other ones added so it was changed to (AS 16.05.) 723 and there were two sections in the revisor's bill in which that change to the end of the spanned reference was made. The first section started out (AS 16.05.) 440 and this one started out (AS 16.05.) 330 and I think what happened is they just duplicated the change in the second section. There was no intention to change 440 to 330. I was concerned that that might-because 330 actually will pick up the fishing licensing fees. So I was concerned that it might actually, even though it was undoing an error, that it might change something on the ground. I asked George Utermohle, our fish and game person, to look into that and to talk to the Department of Fish and Game about it. Everyone now seems. satisfied that it will not change anything." There is a memo in the committee packets from Mr. Utermohle about the aquatic farming triennial license. SENATOR HALFORD asked about the next to last paragraph in the memo that reads, "It is my conclusion that an aquatic farming activity authorized by a permit issued under AS 16.40 is not subject to the aquatic farming triennial license and that a…" He asked whether "we are doing what he says." MS. FINLEY said yes, that in making the change there is no change in law. What he's saying now is "As the law stands now, an aquatic farming activity authorized by a permit under 640 is not subject to the triennial license that is in, I believe it is, 330. By changing from 440 to 330, we're not changing anything." SENATOR HALFORD said, "He said it may be useful to amend 930." MS. FINLEY said that it is a long and complicated issue but she believes he is saying there was an ambiguity that arose when AS 16.40.100-199 was enacted and it wasn't clear how they interacted. It is his opinion that the amendment in the revisor's bill doesn't change anything. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if that's appropriate for a revisor's bill. MS. FINLEY said no, she'd rather have the Department of Fish and Game deal with it. Number 1580 SENATOR HALFORD said that partial fixes were being made and it came from a revisor's bill. MS. FINLEY said it is her intention to fix problems. without causing other harm. She could ask Fish and Game if they have suggestions on amending AS 16.05.930(g) but she doesn't want to change anything that isn't necessary. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was no problem holding the bill. SENATOR HALFORD commented that this is a situation where "you pull on a thread…" SENATOR PHILLIPS asked about the change from 19 to 18 years of age on page 1 line 9. Number 544 MS. FINLEY said that when the age of minority was changed from 19 to 18, AS 13.06.050(29) wasn't amended and this takes care of that oversight. When the uniform probate code definition was enacted, the age of majority, which was 19, was put in; later the age of majority was changed to 18 but the definition was not changed here. Therefore, if you're the age of majority you shouldn't be considered a minor under the uniform probate code. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he wanted to hold the bill so members could more thoroughly read and understand the memo from George Utermohle. It is also his intention to contact Fish & Game. SB 82 was held in committee.