Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/25/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Jim Duncan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 306: "An Act relating to an antitrust exemption for
persons engaged in the fishing industry."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
SB 374: "An Act extending the period of regulation of
material sites used for timber operations under
the Forest Practices Act and extending a
corresponding exemption from provisions regulating
mining reclamation; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
SB 310: "An Act relating to the management and sale of
state timber and relating to the administration of
forest land."
HCS CSSB 310(RES) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH
INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR JIM DUNCAN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 119
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4766
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor SB 306
JIM FORBES, Assistant Attorney General
1031 W. 4th, Ste. 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
Phone: 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 306
CHRIS GATES, Director
Division of Economic Development
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110804
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0804
Phone: 465-2017
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 306 and supported SB 310
JOHN ABSHIRE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Phone: 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 306
TORIE BAKER, Member
Board of Directors
Cordova Fishermen United
P.O. Box 1159
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Phone: 424-3820
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 306
KATE TROLL, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Seiners
9226 Long Run
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-5117
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 306
JERRY MCCUNE, President
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 Fourth Street, #211
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-2820
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 306
JERRY GALLAGHER, Legislative Liaison
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724
Phone: 465-2400
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 374
TOM BOUTIN, Director
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724
Phone: 465-2491
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 310
RON WOLFE, Chief Forester
Klukwan Forest Products
3017 Clinton Blvd.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-7104
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
RICK SOLIE, Aide
Senator Steve Frank
State Capitol, Room 518
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3709
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 310
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 306
SHORT TITLE: ANTITRUST EXEMPTION FOR FISHERMEN
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)DUNCAN,Zharoff,Little,Taylor,
Kerttula,Lincoln,Salo,Donley
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2828 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2828 (S) RES, JUD
02/23/94 2943 (S) COSPONSOR(S): ZHAROFF
03/25/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/29/94 3390 (S) RES RPT 2DP 3NR
03/29/94 3390 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED
(LABOR)
04/08/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/12/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/13/94 3624 (S) JUD RPT 4DP
04/13/94 3624 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LABOR)
04/14/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
04/18/94 3752 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/18/94
04/18/94 3753 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/18/94 3753 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/18/94 3753 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LITTLE, TAYLOR,
KERTTULA,
04/18/94 3753 (S) LINCOLN, SALO, DONLEY
04/18/94 3753 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 306
04/18/94 3754 (S) PASSED Y18 N1 E1
04/18/94 3762 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/18/94 3552 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/18/94 3552 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
04/19/94 3611 (H) FSH REFERRAL WAIVED
04/25/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 374
SHORT TITLE: MATERIAL SITES FOR TIMBER OPERATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/94 3448 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/05/94 3449 (S) RESOURCES
04/13/94 (S) RES AT 4:15 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
04/14/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
04/14/94 3665 (S) RES RPT 5DP 1NR
04/14/94 3665 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED
(DNR)
04/18/94 3752 (S) RLS RPT 4CAL 1NR 4/18/94
04/18/94 3755 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/18/94 3755 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/18/94 3755 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 374
04/18/94 3755 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1
04/18/94 3756 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE
04/18/94 3762 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/18/94 3552 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/18/94 3552 (H) RESOURCES
04/25/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 310
SHORT TITLE: STATE/PRIVATE/MUNI TIMBER OPERATION/SALE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)FRANK,Taylor,Pearce,Sharp,
Miller,Kelly,Halford;REPRESENTATIVE(S) Olberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2829 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2829 (S) RESOURCES
03/02/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/02/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/05/94 (H) MINUTE(ECO)
03/16/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/16/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/22/94 (S) RES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/24/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/28/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/30/94 3406 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
03/30/94 3407 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS PUBLISHED
(DNR)
03/30/94 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/30/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/05/94 3448 (S) RULES RPT 3CAL 2NR 4/5/94
04/05/94 3449 (S) HELD TO 4/6/94
04/06/94 3476 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/06/94 3477 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/06/94 3477 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY LITTLE
04/06/94 3478 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3478 (S) AM NO 2 MOVED BY LITTLE
04/06/94 3479 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3479 (S) AM NO 3 NOT OFFERED
04/06/94 3479 (S) AM NO 4 MOVED BY LITTLE
04/06/94 3479 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3480 (S) AM NO 5 MOVED BY DUNCAN
04/06/94 3480 (S) AM NO 5 FAILED Y8 N12
04/06/94 3480 (S) AM NO 6 MOVED BY DUNCAN
04/06/94 3481 (S) AM NO 6 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3481 (S) AM NO 7 MOVED BY DUNCAN
04/06/94 3482 (S) AM NO 7 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3482 (S) AM NO 8 MOVED BY DUNCAN
04/06/94 3482 (S) AM NO 8 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3483 (S) AM NO 9 MOVED BY LINCOLN
04/06/94 3483 (S) AM NO 9 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3483 (S) AM NO 10 MOVED BY ZHAROFF
04/06/94 3484 (S) AM NO 10 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3484 (S) AM NO 11 MOVED BY ZHAROFF
04/06/94 3484 (S) AM NO 11 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3485 (S) AM NO 12 MOVED BY LINCOLN
04/06/94 3485 (S) AM NO 12 FAILED Y10 N10
04/06/94 3486 (S) AM NO 13 MOVED BY ZHAROFF
04/06/94 3486 (S) AM NO 13 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3486 (S) AM NO 14 MOVED BY ADAMS
04/06/94 3487 (S) AM NO 14 FAILED Y8 N12
04/06/94 3487 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD
Y11 N9
04/06/94 3487 (S) THIRD READING 4/7 CALENDAR
04/07/94 3506 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSB 310(RES)
04/07/94 3506 (S) PASSED Y11 N8 E1
04/07/94 3506 (S) Adams NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/08/94 3527 (S) RECON TAKEN UP/IN THIRD READING
04/08/94 3527 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y11
N7 E2
04/08/94 3531 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/08/94 3212 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/08/94 3212 (H) RESOURCES
04/08/94 3220 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): OLBERG
04/15/94 3526 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
04/15/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
04/15/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/20/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
04/20/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/22/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
04/22/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-65, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:30 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Carney, Davies, James, and Mulder. Members absent were
Representatives Finkelstein and Green.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS stated there is a quorum present. He
said the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage,
Cordova, and Fairbanks.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
FINKELSTEIN joined the committee at 8:32 a.m.)
SB 306 - ANTITRUST EXEMPTION FOR FISHERMEN
SENATOR JIM DUNCAN, PRIME SPONSOR, stated SB 306 confers
state antitrust immunity on fishermen, allowing them to
negotiate raw fish prices with processors in order to
improve the market price of Alaska seafood. It also permits
fishermen and fish processors to agree to the minimum price
for which processors will sell the processed fish. He said
in recent years, salmon prices have fallen dramatically.
Alaska needs to offer greater support to the state's fishing
industry, which is the state's largest private employer.
SENATOR DUNCAN pointed out that fishing affects every
segment of the state's economy, from small coastal villages
to the state's general fund. Ex-vessel value of Alaska
salmon declined by 67 percent between 1988 and 1993, yet
salmon fishermen caught 64 percent more fish. As raw fish
prices continue to drop, fishing communities and boroughs
suffer from poor local economies, as well as decreased state
revenue sharing from fisheries taxes. He stated British
Columbia fishermen have consistently been getting higher
salmon prices than Alaska fishermen, in part because of
multi-year collective bargaining agreements with processors.
SB 306 provides for a similar system, allowing fishermen to
form associations to negotiate prices with processors.
SENATOR DUNCAN said this legislation was recommended in the
1993 Alaska attorney general's report on the Bristol Bay
sockeye salmon industry. A state antitrust exemption is the
first step. He stated once the legislature has approved a
state exemption, the state will request a federal exemption.
Collective bargaining between fishermen and processors will
help stabilize commercial fishing prices, bolstering local
and state economies. He stressed stable raw fish prices
also will promote stable consumer prices for processed
seafood products, which means greater sales of Alaska
seafood.
Number 046
JIM FORBES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, testified via
teleconference and said SB 306 is a first step in the
recommendation given by the attorney general.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked if there are any
negatives to SB 306.
MR. FORBES replied he cannot think of any negatives. He
pointed out there is a zero fiscal note. He said SB 306
will help facilitate communications between the fishers and
processors.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wondered if there will be fees involved
which might be a burden on the small fishermen.
MR. FORBES stated SB 306 is neutral on that type of issue.
Number 070
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked if it would be possible to
require value-added prior to exportation.
MR. FORBES replied SB 306 is neutral on that issue as well.
CHRIS GATES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED),
expressed support for SB 306.
JOHN ABSHIRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
expressed support for SB 306. He stated the department is
involved in mediation in trying to reach a price and SB 306
will help the entire industry.
Number 093
TORIE BAKER, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CORDOVA FISHERMEN
UNITED (CFU), testified via teleconference and said CFU
supports SB 306 for all of the reasons mentioned.
KATE TROLL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA SEINERS,
said in 1991, she was involved in a five day strike and
realized at that time that fishermen are stuck in limbo, as
they are not the cannery operated and dominated fleet
anymore but are also not independent businessmen either.
She stated the fishing industry is an industry in
transition. She felt SB 306 will help bridge that
transition to where the fishermen want to be perceived--as
business partners entering into negotiations on price.
MS. TROLL said a group got together shortly after the strike
to determine how they could best help their industry to be
positive and it was felt that supporting value-added
products and price stability was important. She stated to
get to price stability, there was a need to enter into
multi-year contracts. She explained they had a conference
to discuss the concept and the major processors were not
allowed to attend the conference. After that conference, a
pink salmon working group was formed and a formula was
developed to spur the idea of multi-year contracts. That
formula was sent to the processors. She noted the response
was silence because the processors had been counseled by
their attorneys that they cannot enter into conceptual types
of discussions without conflicting the antitrust
regulations. She stressed that is why SB 306 is important--
to get that type of dialogue and constructive negotiations
going.
MS. TROLL noted SB 306 is a first step. In response to
Representative James's question about fees, she anticipates
the existing associations will take up the initiative and
noted there is a dues structure. She said there are also
organizations looking at possibly forming a marketing
association, which would be based on a small percentage of
whatever was negotiated. She urged committee members to
pass SB 306.
Number 164
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY made a MOTION to MOVE SB 306 out
of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there were any
representatives of the processors association present.
SENATOR DUNCAN said the processors were represented at
Senate hearings on the bill and expressed support for SB
306.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if anyone has talked to Senator
Stevens and the Congressional delegation to get them moving
on the second step.
SENATOR DUNCAN responded he has not yet spoken to anyone
because he wanted to ensure SB 306 gets passed first. He
noted the state of Washington has received a federal
exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER asked if there was a committee
substitute (CS) coming out of the Senate on SB 306.
SENATOR DUNCAN stated no. He said when the bill was in the
Judiciary Committee, Senator Taylor wanted to look at what
it would take to set up a state agency and have state
oversight, instead of going through a federal exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER clarified that is one of the options
outlined in the attorney general's memo.
SENATOR DUNCAN replied it is one option and the other option
is the federal exemption. He felt the federal exemption is
the option which should be pursued because it does not
require the costs, efforts, etc., involved in creating a
state agency.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked how realistic it is to get the
federal exemption.
SENATOR DUNCAN responded he is not sure, but pointed out it
has been done in the state of Washington.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt the simplest way to go is to get
the federal exemption and leave setting up a state agency as
the last option.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE felt the demand for fish is a
driving force and not just individual tastes but also price.
He said a possible negative to SB 306 is these associations
and long-term agreements might increase consumer price.
JERRY MCCUNE, PRESIDENT, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA, felt
there will not be any increase in price because of the
negotiations on price. He said fishermen are currently
being paid less than they have ever been paid and the
consumer price remains the same. He stressed the middle
person is the person making the money. He noted fishermen
are currently at the whim of supply and demand and what the
processors will pay. He pointed out that in Japan the price
is continually going up on the retail level for the export.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that is his concern. The
fishermen are not getting paid--it is the middle people who
are marking up the price. If the middle people do not chose
to reduce their mark-up, the consumer price is going to go
up to reflect the increase to the fishermen and a decreasing
spiral occurs. He wondered if the middle people will absorb
enough so the fishermen can get an increase without the end
product costing more to the consumer.
Number 264
MR. MCCUNE stated many processors are cutting out the middle
people, such as the broker, and are going to market for
themselves resulting in less costs to the fishermen. He
explained in the United States, the fishermen send their
fish to a broker, the broker takes bids and gets the highest
price possible. Many processors are going direct to the
consumer, so they get lower costs in their business which
does reflect a higher price for the harvester. However, the
problem is the harvester has no leverage to get a higher
price and the only options are a strike or delivering to one
processor.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt SB 306 could lead to an expansion
of marketing of the state's fish product in the domestic
market particularly because at the present time, the
antitrust constraint against the fishermen talking to the
processors is the same constraint of them talking to each
other. He said when he was involved on the seafood
marketing side, one of the big problems was that everyone
was cutting their own deal with their own broker and their
own distributors, yet they could not share that information
in order to get a uniformly higher price for the product.
He said the lowest price tended to establish the price on a
regional basis.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON thought if the federal exemption can
be approved, SB 306 will be revolutionary in providing for
some price negotiations which would expand marketing and at
the same time, improve quality. He said there would be an
ability to not only negotiate a three year contract for
price but also control the quality, which would ultimately
lead to an increase in the consumer price on the product.
If the consumer perceives the product is going to be
available, the quality is going to be consistent, and the
price is going to be known, the fishermen in Alaska would
get more money for their fish on a raw fish basis.
Number 327
MR. MCCUNE stated if he could stabilize the price on a three
year basis, he could then do some financial planning. In
addition, the processor would know what he needs to do to
make his profit with the consumer. He stressed
unfortunately fish are currently like oil, the price is up
and down. He did not feel it will be difficult to get the
federal exemption.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
SB 374 - MATERIAL SITES FOR TIMBER OPERATIONS
JERRY GALLAGHER, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (DNR), expressed support for SB 374. He said
material sites which support timber activities such as
building roads, etc., are regulated under both the Forest
Practices Act (FPA) and the Mine Reclamation Act. He stated
the Mine Reclamation Act had an exemption for two years.
The intention of the exemption was to have DNR develop
regulations so that it would defer to the FPA regulation of
these sites. He noted the FPA regulation is more rigorous.
MR. GALLAGHER said DNR did not get the regulations done and
the exemption expires June 30, 1994. He explained SB 374
gives DNR an extra six months to get the regulations in
place. He stated the regulations are currently out for
public comment. He noted the more rigorous FPA standards
still apply. Without the six months extension, a timber
operator will be required to get an approval both under the
FPA plan and the Mine Reclamation Act, for exactly the same
permit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES made a MOTION to MOVE SB 374 with
zero fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
SB 310 - STATE/PRIVATE/MUNI TIMBER OPERATION/SALE
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES)
as follows:
Page 8, line 6, following "industry;":
Delete "and"
Insert "[AND]"
Page 8, line 7, following "habitat":
Insert new material to read:
"; and
(8) to the fullest extent practicable,
harvested forest land shall be reforested, naturally or
artificially, so as to result in a sustained yield of
merchantable timber from that land; if artificial
planting is required, silviculturally acceptable seedlings
must first be available for planting at an economically
fair price"
Page 8, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 5. AS 41.17.060 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) With respect to private forest land only,
to the fullest extent practicable, harvested forest
land shall be reforested, naturally or artificially.If
artificial planting is required, silviculturally acceptable
seedlings must first be available for planting at an
economically fair price."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, following line 23:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 8. AS 41.17.060(b)(4) is repealed."
Number 442
TOM BOUTIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DNR, said this
amendment will modify only the wording for sustained yield
and reforestation on private land. He stated last summer,
the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF) wrote a brief
which said DNR should be requiring private landowners to
comply with a continuous even flow harvest on their private
land. He felt the existing FPA does not require that and AS
41.17.060 says that private land complies with sustained
yield, so long as it is reforested. However, private
landowners were concerned upon reviewing the brief.
Therefore, this amendment makes it even more clear that
reforestation is required on private land, not an even flow
harvest.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what the definition of
"economically fair price" is.
MR. BOUTIN stated the definition is in existing law, except
it says in the state. He said seedlings are purchased as
needed. Reforestation is required by law and DNR buys
seedlings at the market price.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN wondered if Mr. Boutin had
talked to anyone involved in the deliberations on the FPA to
determine whether or not there was any discussion on the
application of the sustained yield concept to private lands.
MR. BOUTIN replied he has. He said the part of the law
which the SCLDF used to represent an even flow should be
required on state land came from 1978. He stated clearly
sustained yield is reforestation and he cannot get some kind
of an even flow requirement from that wording. He noted the
accepted gossip at that time was the SCLDF had written the
brief to help the attorney general in his negotiations with
a corporation.
Number 557
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated Section 8 repeals the (b)(4) of
AS 41.17.060 and the new Section 4 takes out the "so as to
result in a sustained yield of merchantable timber from the
land;". He clarified private land only is being talked
about.
MR. BOUTIN said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked why the private timber operators
want this amendment.
MR. BOUTIN said private landowners were nervous as a result
of the SCLDF brief because the wording in existing law does
not adequately define sustained yield, so as long as there
is reforestation. He noted the state is under a different
test with the definition of sustained yield under Title 41
and the stronger definition of sustained yield in Title 38.
He felt in existing law, sustained yield is met on private
land just by reforestation and that was understood until the
brief.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked why this amendment is necessary
in SB 310, which addresses forest management agreements
(FMAs).
MR. BOUTIN replied the amendment is not related in any way
whatsoever and has no impact on state land. He said this
amendment is a private land amendment and FMAs are a
different method of sale for the sale of state timber.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the FPA was negotiated under a
consensus environment. He expressed concern that changes
are being made to the FPA just because there is a convenient
vehicle available to do so. He thought if changes are going
to be made to the FPA, they should be introduced as a
separate bill package. He opposed the amendment for that
reason.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she could envision an extension of
the amendment into the availability of timber under a FMA,
particularly when collaboration between landowners and the
amount of timber which could be included from a private
landowner is included.
Number 642
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND the
AMENDMENT to CSSB 310(RES) as follows:
Page 8, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 5. AS 41.17.060 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) With respect to private forest land only, to
the fullest extent practicable, harvested forest land shall
be reforested, naturally or artificially so as to
result in a continuing yield of merchantable yield from
that land.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the idea is to leave the
language as it is without the words "sustained yield" for
private lands and leave it exactly as it is for state lands.
The change will not undermine the concept of reforestation.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said sustained yield is defined
in existing law. He stated there has been an attempt to
interpret sustained yield as not applying beyond
reforestation to actual harvest limitations. He explained
continuing yield means continued regeneration. He felt the
main amendment goes beyond what is described because it
takes the concept of reforestation and deletes it from the
law.
TAPE 94-65, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. BOUTIN stated existing law provides that a private
landowner with 50,000 acres can log those acres, as long as
reforestation occurs naturally or artificially. Eighty
years from now that private landowner could log those acres
again. He said the concern brought forth by the SCLDF brief
is that the private landowner would have to take the 50,000
acres, divide it by the 80 year rotation and log only
1/100th of it each year. He did not feel the law requires
that, but he can understand the concern.
MR. BOUTIN stated Representative Finkelstein's words
"continuing yield" in the amendment to the amendment might
also give a private landowner the same concern.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted continuing yield is not defined in
law.
RON WOLFE, CHIEF FORESTER, KLUKWAN FOREST PRODUCTS (KFP),
expressed support of SB 310. He said in written and oral
testimony, KFP has requested the amendment. He noted the
amendment says "harvested forest land shall be reforested."
Existing regulation provides a very specific standard with
respect to the number of seedlings per acre, per region that
must exist in a well distributed manner. The regulation
also establishes a standard as to what is an acceptable
seedling. KFP feels it is very clear that the land has to
be reforested. KFP feels the reference to sustained yield
is confusing and continual yield would be equally confusing.
MR. WOLFE said the removal of sustained yield weakens what
is viewed as a very specific standard in law. He stressed
the threat of lawsuit is what generates KFP's concern. He
stated his understanding of the FPA affords KFP, as a
private landowner, certain protections against a third party
lawsuit. The threat of litigation would most likely go
against the DNR commissioner rather than the private
landowner, but the concept of the litigation would be such a
threat to private landowners that they would have to be
involved to protect their interests.
MR. WOLFE stated the amendment is more of a clerical matter,
reducing some confusion. He added that he participated
extensively in the FPA review and he did not recall any
reference to a sustained yield concept being applied to
specific parcels of private land.
Number 068
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt "recurring yield" might be a
better word and MODIFIED his AMENDMENT to the AMENDMENT to
change the word "continual" to "recurring."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he looked up continue, sustain,
and recur in the dictionary and all of the definitions are
very similar. He read the definitions of each.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted there is a definition of
sustained yield in law. Legislative action was taken to
change sustained yield to recurring, which ties to the
concept in subsection (4) which is reforestation.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote on the
amendment to the amendment. Voting in favor of the motion
were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES, CARNEY, and FINKELSTEIN.
Voting against the motion were REPRESENTATIVES JAMES,
HUDSON, BUNDE, MULDER, and WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 5-3.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the FPA was in fact
negotiated in a consensus format over a period of time.
MR. WOLFE replied over a period of time it was primarily
consensus.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there has been any instance
where a private landowner has been sued under this section
of the law.
MR. WOLFE replied not to his knowledge. He said part of the
FPA has a third party protection, meaning a private
landowner cannot be sued.
Number 150
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Wolfe's view on the effect
of the words "fullest extent practicable" in Section (4).
He felt when that type of phrase is used in law, it makes it
difficult for someone to lose in court.
MR. WOLFE responded if an area is going to be artificially
replanted, there is an attempt to use seed which is from an
acceptable source. He said a popular concept in forest
management is using a seed which is of the same species and
same geographic origin. He stated for spruce, seed crops
are not on a regular basis. There is a periodicity of one
in seven or one in five years where there is a bumper crop.
He stressed the seed desirable is not always available.
From a forester's perspective, if he is unable to get
acceptable seed to grow seedlings, that would mean it is not
practicable for him to be able to reforest. Mr. Wolfe said
KFP has invested, wherever they have harvested, efforts in
trying to collect seed.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES JAMES, CARNEY,
MULDER, HUDSON, BUNDE, and WILLIAMS. Voting against the
amendment were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES and FINKELSTEIN. The
MOTION PASSED 6-2.
Number 188
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to RESCIND the
committee's action in adopting the following amendment to
CSSB 310(RES):
Page 2, line 30:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN OBJECTED. He felt there was a
persuasive case as to why this amendment was a good idea.
He asked why the committee should change their action.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated after reviewing the amendment
and visiting with the sponsor of SB 310, it was felt the
amendment weakens the intent of the legislation. He said
there is no requirement there has to be FMAs but the
commissioner will at least have to look at a FMA by
retaining the word "shall". He stressed if the committee is
serious about the legislation and economic development and
diversity, they should force the commissioner to look at the
possibility of these agreements in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled there has been a huge amount
of testimony about allowing a certain amount of discretion
on the commissioner's part. He felt to force the
commissioner to make a solicitation when in the
commissioner's best judgment it would be a waste of the
state's effort is inconsistent with the other debate on the
bill. He described several instances in the future where
there is no way possible that a FMA could be granted. He
stated giving the commissioner discretion to offer a FMA in
one part of the state and not necessarily in the other part
of the state makes sense.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the Division of Forestry is
going to offer FMAs wherever it makes sense. With the
interest in diversifying the economy, the division is going
to offer FMAs whenever they can. He felt to force them to
do that, when in their judgment it does not make sense, is a
waste.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN agreed with Representative
Davies.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVES BUNDE, MULDER,
HUDSON, JAMES, and WILLIAMS. Voting against the motion were
REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES, CARNEY, and FINKELSTEIN. The MOTION
FAILED 5-3.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES)
as follows:
Page 5, line 13:
Delete "regarding"
Insert "requiring"
Page 5, lines 15-16:
Delete "regarding compensation, if required by the
department,"
Insert "requiring compensation"
Page 5, line 23:
Delete "regarding responsibilities"
Insert "requiring the proposer to be responsible"
Page 5, line 28:
Delete "for"
Insert "requiring"
Page 6, lines 5-7:
Delete all material and insert:
"(N) provisions requiring the proposer to
reforest, stabilize, monitor, and meet other residual
obligations upon deactivation or termination; these
provisions may include bonding;"
RICK SOLIE, AIDE, SENATOR STEVE FRANK, said this amendment
incorporates suggestions made by the former attorney
general, Charles Cole, in a letter to the House Resources
Committee. Mr. Cole suggested the language in the FMAs was
permissive.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 282
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB 310(RES)
as follows:
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "proposed agreement"
Insert "proposal"
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED.
MR. SOLIE stated this amendment is also in response to
Charles Cole's concerns that the bill was not clear on
financial feasibility.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB
310(RES) as follows:
Page 4, lines 10-13:
Delete all material and insert new subsections (6) and
(7) to read:
(6) economic benefits and liabilities from the
proposed agreement to the region in which the land that
is to be covered by the agreement is located;"
(7) economic benefits and liabilities to the State
and to the state forest land under the proposed
agreement;"
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said when the Division of
Forestry is considering factors in evaluating proposals, not
only will they consider the economic benefits but as
provided with this amendment, consider the liabilities as
well.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. He felt the amendment is
redundant as the financial feasibility is already being
considered.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that argument would say
get rid of subsections (6) and (7) completely. He said
there are risks to the state involved and gave an example.
He stated this amendment is a suggestion of Charles Cole.
He pointed out the state has been sued before and had to
settle for millions of dollars. Therefore, the liabilities
the state might face should be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the financial feasibility is a
much narrower factor because it addresses the agreement
itself. Economic benefits and liabilities are much broader
terms and apply to other considerations.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN,
DAVIES, and CARNEY. Voting against the amendment were
REPRESENTATIVES HUDSON, MULDER, JAMES, BUNDE, and WILLIAMS.
The MOTION FAILED 5-3.
Number 369
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB
10(RES) as follows:
Page 3, lines 10-11:
Delete: "unless the evaluation under (d) indicates it
is unlikely that the proposed agreement will be selected as
a tentatively successful proposed agreement"
Page 3, line 12:
Delete "30"
Insert "60"
Delete "60"
Insert "120
Page 5, line 1:
After "government agencies"
Insert "and hold public hearings"
Page 5, line 5:
After "Section,"
Insert "and determining that the tentatively proposed
agreement is in the best interests of the State,"
Page 6, line 8:
Delete "The"
Insert "After soliciting public comment, holding public
hearings, and determining that the proposed final agreement
is in the best interests of the State, the"
Page 7, line 5:
After "shall"
Insert "solicit public comment, hold public hearings,"
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said this amendment increases the
time period for public comment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the single issue which aroused
the most concern about SB 310 was the perceived attack on
the ability of the public to comment. He felt this
amendment would help alleviate those concerns.
MR. SOLIE expressed opposition to the amendment. It is felt
the amendments made in the Senate Resources Committee, which
added an additional public comment period to the one
initially contained in the bill, will allow for sufficient
public involvement. He said this amendment goes further
than what is necessary to protect the public interest.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES CARNEY, DAVIES,
and FINKELSTEIN. Voting against the amendment were
REPRESENTATIVES JAMES, HUDSON, BUNDE, MULDER, and WILLIAMS.
The MOTION FAILED 5-3.
Number 399
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB
310(RES) as follows:
Page 5, line 2, following "agreement.":
Insert "If a tentatively successful proposed agreement
includes land within a municipality, the commissioner shall
submit the tentatively successful proposed agreement to the
municipality to determine if the agreement is consistent
with municipal land use plans. The municipality shall make
a consistency determination within 60 days of receipt of the
tentatively successful proposed agreement and, if the
agreement is not consistent with municipal land use plans,
specifically set forth the provisions of the agreement that
are not consistent."
Page 5, following line 8:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) must be consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with municipal land use plans if the agreement
includes land within a municipality;"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said this amendment requires FMAs
to be consistent with municipal land use plans. He stated
this is another issue which was brought forward in public
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed support for the amendment.
He recently went through an extremely unnecessary set of
objections to proposed actions in his area which resulted
from the state taking action without consideration for local
laws first. He felt this type of consistency check will
smooth the process and keep the state from local hearings
that get at odds with what the state action is.
MR. SOLIE expressed opposition to the amendment.
MR. BOUTIN expressed two concerns with the amendment. He
felt sooner or later the land use plan process would become
a referendum on the FMA and would be the overriding feature
in consideration. Second, he said the Kenai Peninsula
Borough has no timber sale program but recently by ordinance
did require 300 foot buffer strips on streams on timber
sales based on no scientific evidence. He expressed concern
that a FMA might be constrained by some similar requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated there is nothing which
would prevent a municipality from putting a buffer strip in
place anytime they wanted, regardless of this amendment. He
said a municipality can restrict activities within its land.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed and said municipalities have
the ability to zone. He felt it makes more sense to have
the state coordinating with municipalities rather than
getting into positions where a state agency is suggesting
one thing and the municipality is suggesting another.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES HUDSON, DAVIES,
CARNEY, and FINKELSTEIN. Voting against the amendment were
REPRESENTATIVES MULDER, JAMES, BUNDE, and WILLIAMS. The
MOTION FAILED 4-4.
Number 490
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB
310(RES) as follows:
Page 4, line 31:
After "agreement."
Insert "The commissioner shall conduct a competitive
bidding procedure in order to determine the highest
qualified bidder for the proposed agreement; in addition to
the bid price, the commissioner shall consider the value of
the area for the long-term production of timber, the extent
that local hire will be increased, the intent of the bidder
to process a value added product within the State of Alaska,
and the experience of the bidder in the forest products
industry.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the amendment sets up a
procedure that once a FMA proposal is submitted, bidding
will not involve just the price, but also a variety of other
considerations including the bidders intent to process
within the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. He asked the sponsor's
representative to speak to the value of competitive bidding.
He thought the value of local hire and value-added were
included in amendments adopted previously.
MR. SOLIE expressed opposition to the amendment. He said
in-state processing language was adopted previously. He
stated this amendment goes in a different direction. It is
felt that a negotiated agreement with a FMA is the best way
to achieve the in-state processing and local hire.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt there is considerable value in
setting up intent language and he thought someone
representing the state's interest was going to come back
with that language. He said if the committee does not like
the competitive bidding procedure, then the committee should
consider adopting the second sentence of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt this amendment, as written, would
set the state up for a challenge on constitutionality. She
did not think the state can enter into a competitive bidding
process containing these stipulations. She said the value
of the area for long-term production of timber is included
in the economic and feasibility considerations. She
stressed this amendment will make all FMAs unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to AMEND the AMENDMENT
to CSSB 310(RES) as follows:
Delete "The commissioner shall conduct a competitive
bidding procedure in order to determine the highest
qualified bidder for the proposed agreement; in addition to
the bid price,
The amendment would then read:
Page 4, line 31, after "agreement." insert:
"The commissioner shall consider the value of the area
for the long-term production of timber, the extent that
local hire will be increased, the intent of the bidder to
process a value-added product within the State of Alaska,
and the experience of the bidder in the forest products
industry."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated this amendment to the amendment
enhances the bill by setting up intent language but does not
force the state to go into a competitive bidding process.
MR. GATES expressed support to the amendment to the
amendment. He said the intent language would help focus
FMAs on items of long-standing interest to the state in
terms of value-added production of the state's timber
resources and in-state local hire.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said although he prefers the
entire amendment, he will consider the amendment to the
amendment as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER questioned whether this is the
appropriate location in the bill for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN MODIFIED his AMENDMENT to add:
Location of the amendment is uncertain and is left to the
bill drafter.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
amended amendment. Hearing none, the AMENDED AMENDMENT was
ADOPTED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB
310(RES) as follows:
Page 7, line 4, after "(1)":
Insert "The commissioner shall strictly enforce the
provisions of the final agreement. The commissioner shall
perform an annual review of the operator's performance under
the agreement."
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated this amendment comes from
his experience in watching the bigger projects which states
have had problems with. He said one of the ways to avoid
problems is to ensure there are strict enforcement
provisions and annual reviews so the problems get addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. He felt the amendment was
redundant because a similar amendment was defeated
previously.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to AMEND the AMENDMENT to
CSSB 310(RES) deleting the entire second sentence.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
amended amendment. Hearing none, the AMENDED AMENDMENT was
ADOPTED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB
310(RES) as follows:
Page 5, line 13:
Delete "regarding compensation from the proposer"
Insert "requiring the proposer to compensate the state
for full costs incurred"
Page 5, lines 15-16:
Delete all material and
Insert "(D) provisions requiring the proposer to pay
the state's cost of administering, monitoring, and enforcing
the terms and conditions of the agreement and other
requirements of state law;"
Page 5, line 17:
Delete "regarding responsibilities for"
Insert "making the proposer responsible for all costs
of"
Page 5, line 22, following "agreement;":
Insert "provisions under this paragraph must provide
that the proposer shall pay fair market value for all
material purchased from the state;"
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said there has been discussion
about the costs the FMA operator should be responsible for.
He stressed at a minimum, the costs to the state should be
paid so the state cannot be accused of engaging in something
which is actually losing money from the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED. He said total costs are
very ill-defined.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN disagreed. He pointed out that
later in the amendment those costs are outlined.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt this issue has been addressed by
the adoption of amendment X39 and the last amendment.
TAPE 94-66, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said this amendment goes a little
further and says the state's full costs.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she has no problem with the
second and fourth parts of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to AMEND the AMENDMENT as
follows:
Delete:
Page, 5, line 13:
Delete "regarding compensation from the
proposer"
Insert "requiring the proposer to compensate
the state for full costs incurred"
Page 5, line 17:
Delete "regarding responsibilities for"
Insert "making the proposer responsible for
all costs of"
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS OBJECTED.
MR. SOLIE stated the sponsor opposes the amended amendment
because there has been no review of it.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the proposed amended
amendment only accomplishes two things. It says for the
materials purchased, the fair market value has to be paid
and second, those direct costs which come from
administering, monitoring, and enforcing the terms and
conditions of the agreement... must be paid.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN WITHDREW his MOTION on the
original amendment.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES,
FINKELSTEIN, HUDSON, and CARNEY. Voting against the
amendment were REPRESENTATIVES MULDER, JAMES, BUNDE, and
WILLIAMS. The MOTION FAILED 4-4.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB
310(RES) as follows:
Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 21:
Delete all material
Page 2, line 22:
Delete "*Sec. 3."
Insert "*Section 1."
Page 7, line 18, through page 8, line 23:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated this amendment deletes the
portions of the bill which do not relate to FMAs.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES, CARNEY,
and FINKELSTEIN. Voting against the amendment were
REPRESENTATIVES MULDER, BUNDE, JAMES, HUDSON, and WILLIAMS.
The MOTION FAILED 5-3.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND CSSB
310(RES) as follows:
Page 8, lines 8-15:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt this section has not
received the attention it deserves. He did not think it is
appropriate to change the purpose of state forests
retroactively since there were discussions each time the
state forests were established as to what their purpose was.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed support for the amendment.
He felt changing the state forest purposes is not necessary
for FMAs.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the amendment were REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES,
FINKELSTEIN, and CARNEY. Voting against the amendment were
REPRESENTATIVES HUDSON, BUNDE, MULDER, JAMES, and WILLIAMS.
The MOTION FAILED 5-3.
Number 073
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 310(RES),
as amended, with accompanying fiscal notes, out of committee
with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED. He stated he has another
motion to offer.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER WITHDREW his MOTION.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to RESCIND the
committee's action in failing to adopt amendment X35.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he has a series of petitions from
around the state saying the amendment should be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER OBJECTED.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN,
DAVIES, and CARNEY. Voting against the motion were
REPRESENTATIVES BUNDE, MULDER, JAMES, HUDSON, and WILLIAMS.
The MOTION FAILED 5-3.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE CSSB 310(RES),
as amended, with accompanying fiscal notes, out of committee
with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN and DAVIES OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt there is a way to do FMAs
and to get public and legislative support but with the time
available, that support cannot occur.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, HUDSON,
BUNDE, MULDER, and WILLIAMS. Voting against the motion were
REPRESENTATIVES CARNEY, DAVIES, and FINKELSTEIN. The MOTION
PASSED 5-3.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|