Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/28/1994 09:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 28, 1994
9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Al Vezey, Chairman
Representative Pete Kott, Vice Chairman
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Harley Olberg
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Fran Ulmer
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 349: "An Act amending Alaska Rule of Criminal
Procedure 6(r) relating to admissibility of
hearsay evidence by peace officers before the
grand jury."
MOVED FROM COMMITTEE WITH DO PASS
RECOMMENDATIONS
SB 353: "An Act amending Alaska Rule of Criminal
Procedure 24(d) relating to peremptory
challenges of jurors in felony criminal
proceedings."
MOVED FROM COMMITTEE WITH DO PASS
RECOMMENDATIONS
SB 215: "An Act relating to oil and hazardous
substances; redesignating the oil and
hazardous substance release response fund and
relating to it; repealing the Citizens'
Oversight Council on Oil and Other Hazardous
Substances and the authority in law by which
marine highway vessels may be designed and
constructed to aid in oil and hazardous
substance spill cleanup in state marine water
using money in the oil and hazardous
substance release response fund and repealing
the authority of the Department of
Environmental Conservation to levy and
collect fees for review of certain
submissions related to oil; altering
requirements applicable to liens for recovery
of state expenditures related to oil or
hazardous substances; terminating the nickel-
per-barrel oil conservation surcharge;
levying and collecting two new oil
surcharges; and providing for the suspension
and reimposition of one of the new
surcharges."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH NO
RECOMMENDATIONS
WITNESS REGISTER
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 353(JUD)
SENATOR MIKE MILLER
Alaska State Legislature
Alaska State Capitol, Room 423
Juneau, AK 99811-0460
Phone: 465-4976
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 215
DAVID ROGERS, Special Council on HCSCSSB 215
Senate Finance Committee
P.O. Box 33932
Juneau, AK 99803
Phone: 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HCSCSSB 215
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 349
SHORT TITLE: GRAND JURY EVIDENCE BY POLICE OFFICERS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/09/94 3109 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/09/94 3109 (S) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
03/09/94 3109 (S) ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (LAW, DPS,
ADM-2)
03/09/94 3109 (S) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/14/94 3188 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR
03/14/94 3188 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2, DPS,
LAW)
03/14/94 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/25/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/12/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
04/12/94 3583 (S) JUD RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
04/12/94 3584 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY (ADM-2,
DPS, LAW
04/14/94 3666 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/14/94
04/14/94 3669 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/14/94 3669 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/14/94 3669 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/14/94 3669 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 349
(JUD)
04/14/94 3670 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
04/14/94 3670 (S) COURT RULE CHANGE VOTE SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/14/94 3690 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/15/94 3459 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/15/94 3459 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
04/22/94 3686 (H) JUDICIARY REFERRAL WAIVED
04/28/94 (H) STA AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 353
SHORT TITLE: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OF JURORS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/09/94 3116 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/09/94 3116 (S) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
03/09/94 3117 (S) ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (LAW, DPS,
ADM-2)
03/09/94 3117 (S) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/14/94 3189 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR
03/14/94 3189 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2, DPS,
LAW)
03/14/94 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/25/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/12/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
04/12/94 3584 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 3NR SAME TITLE
04/12/94 3584 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY
(ADM-2,DPS,LAW)
04/14/94 3666 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/14/94
04/14/94 3670 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/14/94 3670 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/14/94 3671 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/14/94 3671 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 353
(JUD)
04/14/94 3671 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
04/14/94 3690 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/15/94 3459 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/15/94 3459 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
04/22/94 3687 (H) JUDICIARY REFERRAL WAIVED
04/28/94 (H) STA AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 215
SHORT TITLE: OIL/HAZARDOUS SUBS. RELEASE RESPONSE FUND
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/08/93 2207 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
05/08/93 2207 (S) RESOURCES, FINANCE
11/19/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/19/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
01/19/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/25/94 (S) RES AT 02:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/26/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
01/27/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
01/31/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/03/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/07/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/07/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/11/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/16/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/16/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/22/94 (S) RES AT 12:00 PM BUTRVICH RM 205
02/22/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/28/94 2987 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/28/94 2988 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB PUBLISHED
(DEC)
02/28/94 2988 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS PUBLISHED
(DEC)
03/01/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
03/01/94 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/03/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
03/22/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
03/25/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
04/07/94 (S) FIN AT 08:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
04/07/94 (S) FIN AT 05:00 PM SENATE FIN 518
04/08/94 3521 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1NR NEW TITLE
04/08/94 3522 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS PUBLISHED
(DPS)
04/08/94 3522 (S) ZERO FN TO CS PUBLISHED (DEC)
04/11/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
04/12/94 3587 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS PUBLISHED
(ADM)
04/12/94 3587 (S) ZERO FN TO CS PUBLISHED (REV)
04/12/94 3587 (S) FN TO SB & CS PUBLISHED (LAW)
04/12/94 3586 (S) RULES RPT 3CAL 1NR 1DNP 4/12/94
04/12/94 3590 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/12/94 3590 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/12/94 3591 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY KERTTULA
04/12/94 3592 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N11
04/12/94 3592 (S) AM NO 2 MOVED BY KERTTULA
04/12/94 3592 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y8 N12
04/12/94 3594 (S) AM NO 3 MOVED BY LINCOLN
04/12/94 3594 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y9 N11
04/12/94 3595 (S) AM NO 4 MOVED BY ADAMS
04/12/94 3595 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y9 N11
04/12/94 3595 (S) AM NO 5 MOVED BY ADAMS
04/12/94 3598 (S) AM NO 5 FAILED Y9 N11
04/12/94 3599 (S) AM NO 6 MOVED BY ZHAROFF
04/12/94 3599 (S) AM NO 6 FAILED Y10 N10
04/12/94 3599 (S) AM NO 7 BY ZHAROFF/WITHDRAWN
04/12/94 3599 (S) MTN TO ADVANCE TO 3RD READING
04/12/94 3600 (S) ADVANCE MOTION WITHDRAWN
04/12/94 3600 (S) AM NO 8 MOVED BY MILLER
04/12/94 3600 (S) AM NO 8 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/12/94 3601 (S) AM NO 9 MOVED BY SALO
04/12/94 3601 (S) AM NO 9 FAILED Y9 N10 A1
04/12/94 3602 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD
Y10 N9 A1
04/12/94 3602 (S) THIRD READING 4/13 CALENDAR
04/13/94 3641 (S) ZERO FN TO CS PUBLISHED(LAW)
REPLACES #6
04/13/94 3641 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
215(FIN) AM
04/13/94 3641 (S) FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N9 A1
04/13/94 3641 (S) Miller NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/14/94 3672 (S) RECON TAKEN UP/IN THIRD READING
04/14/94 3673 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y11
N8 E1
04/14/94 3674 (S) EFFECTIVE DATES FAILED Y13 N6
E1
04/14/94 3689 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/15/94 3457 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/15/94 3458 (H) RESOURCES,STATE AFFAIRS,FINANCE
04/22/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
04/27/94 3751 (H) RES RPT HCS(RES) 5DP 2DNP 2AM
04/27/94 3751 (H) DP:HUDSON,BUNDE,MULDER,WILLIAMS
04/27/94 3751 (H) DP: JAMES
04/27/94 3751 (H) DNP: CARNEY,FINKELSTEIN
04/27/94 3751 (H) AM: GREEN, DAVIES
04/27/94 3751 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (REV) 4/27/94
04/27/94 3751 (H) -4 ZERO FNS (DPS,LAW,DEC,ADM)
4/27/94
04/28/94 (H) STA AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-51, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN AL VEZEY called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
Members present were REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, G. DAVIS, OLBERG,
B. DAVIS and ULMER. A quorum was present.
CSSB 349 - GRAND JURY EVIDENCE BY POLICE OFFICERS
CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened CSSB 349 for discussion. He noted
House Judiciary Committee had already waived this bill,
therefore State Affairs would be its last committee of
referral. He believed CSSB 349 was identical to its House
companion bill which had been before the House Education and
Social Services, Judiciary and Finance Committees. He
stated CSSB 349 proposes to allow police officers to give
hearsay testimony of other police officers they serve with
or supervise.
REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER asked if CHAIRMAN VEZEY planned to
allow testimony from the Department of Law.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS entered at 9:06 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN VEZEY responded no, everyone in the committee, but
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER, heard their testimony previously in
other committees.
Number 040
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER said she would like to have her
question answered because it may lead to an amendment on the
floor. She wanted to save time. She noted Department of
Law cannot testify on the floor of the House.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY emphasized the bill had been heard in three
committees in the House.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER reminded this hearing was the last
committee of referral, therefore it would be their last
chance to put the answer to her question on public record.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked REPRESENTATIVE ULMER to bring the
question up on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS said she felt REPRESENTATIVE
ULMER should have the right to ask the question.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if anyone else in the committee desired
to hear testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT mentioned he may be able to answer
the question.
Number 080
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked on page 2, line 23, relating to
hearsay evidence, if the evidence had to have been recorded
in order for it to be used by the peace officer before the
grand jury. Is some sort of record or formal transcript
required.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER further questioned how the testimony or
omission could be proven negligent at some time if records
are not kept at the time of questioning.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY observed it would be a difficult burden of
proof. He pointed out most testimony given in court is not
backed up be transcripts or tape recordings, only peoples'
testimony under oath.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER replied a hearsay exception is
different from testimony given in court under oath. She
noted this is a grand jury proceeding.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY suggested REPRESENTATIVE ULMER prepare an
amendment and present it on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked that the question be answered.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the pleasure of the committee.
Number 145
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG moved to move CSSB 349(JUD)
from committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER objected to the motion as a matter of
process. She stated CHAIRMAN VEZEY could not tell a member
of the committee that they cannot ask the administration a
legitimate question. She noted Margot Knuth, Department of
Law, was available to answer the question. She emphasized
having Ms. Knuth's testimony on the record was the only way
for other members of the legislature to know what happens in
CSSB 349.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if REPRESENTATIVE ULMER planned to
appeal the decision of the chair.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER answered she objected for the reasons
stated.
Number 175
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the
roll.
IN FAVOR: REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, KOTT, G. DAVIS,
SANDERS, OLBERG.
OPPOSED: REPRESENTATIVES ULMER, B. DAVIS.
MOTION PASSED
CSSB 353(JUD) - PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OF JURORS
Number 180
CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened CSSB 353(JUD) for discussion. He
observed CSSB 353(JUD) in essence reduces the number of
peremptory challenges from ten to six. He believed the
companion bill already had gone through Judiciary, and
possibly Finance, because it is was in Rules now.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER inquired whether or not CSSB 353(JUD)
was similar to how the law was previously in the state of
Alaska. She assumed at one point there had been an equal
number and it was changed. If so, why was it changed and
why is it being changed back.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY answered ten is bigger than six. From
testimony he has heard, the amount of work required to
select of jury can be reduced. The amount of jurors called
for a jury hearing can be a smaller number. A cost savings
method. The legal history of the change, he said, went too
far back for him to have knowledge of.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned if there had been a public
policy reason or rationale for the decision that one side
should have six and the other should have ten. She said she
would be happy to have Margot Knuth, who was observing,
answer the question.
Number 247
MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
answered REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's question. She stated CSSB
353(JUD) is raising the number of peremptory challenges to
ten that the state will have, as well as leaving the
defendants number at ten. She commented the Office of Pubic
Advocacy and the Public Defender's office stated they would
like to see the levels fair. The change would not be a cost
reducing measure as once believed, but it would level the
playing for the state. She did not know why the discrepancy
had existed for so many years. She mentioned when both the
prosecutors and the defense bar now agree that ten each is
the right number, the Governor's office was happy to comply.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked why not six each to save money.
MS. KNUTH answered six each would save money, but the
defense bar was concerned it would not give them enough
flexibility to pick the jury they want. The initial House
Bill version was a compromise version of eight preempts for
each side, however, it was amended in the Senate to bring
the number back up to ten. She pointed out any version with
an equal number is acceptable to the state.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified there was no cost savings.
MS. KNUTH responded correct, CSSB 353(JUD) is now an
equalizing bill.
Number 278
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if was a national standard.
MS. KNUTH answered there is; however, she could not recall
whether it was eight or ten. She believed there was eight
on each side at the general level. They had patterned after
this trend originally.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired the number of preempts in the
companion bill currently in Rules.
MS. KNUTH answered HB 528, with only a Judiciary referral,
reflects six each. The Senate amended it to bring the state
up to ten.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG noted the final line in the analysis
states allowing both six challenges "may" reduce the cost of
criminal trials.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the state did not care what the
number was as long as there was a level playing field.
MS. KNUTH replied correct.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the pleasure of the committee.
Number 317
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG moved to pass CSSB 353(JUD) with
individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the
roll.
IN FAVOR: REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, KOTT, ULMER, B. DAVIS,
G. DAVIS, SANDERS, OLBERG.
MOTION PASSED
HCSCSSB 215(STA) - OIL/HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RELEASE RESPONSE
FUND
Number 328
CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HCSCSSB 215(RES) for discussion. He
noted the committee had before them a proposed State Affairs
committee substitute, version Z. For discussion purposes,
he asked if there was a motion to adopt the new committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS moved to adopt the work draft of
HCSCSSB 215(STA).
CHAIRMAN VEZEY, hearing no objection, adopted HCSCSSB
215(STA), version Z. He stated this version was identical
to the version which passed the Senate, however, with a few
changes. He noted Section 3 of the State Affairs version
requires Community & Regional Affairs to return unused
portions of grant money after one year.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG clarified the change was on page 6,
line 5.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER observed the language "at the direction
of the governor or at the request of the commissioner..."
was being removed, basically making it mandatory.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY responded he was not sure which version of
the committee substitute had made that deletion.
Number 360
SENATOR MIKE MILLER, SPONSOR OF SB 215, addressed the bill.
He pointed out he was before the committee to testify on the
original bill which had passed the Senate and he was not
that familiar with the changes in the committee substitute.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired if the wording "at the direction of
the governor" was removed in the Senate bill, Resources
version.
SENATOR MILLER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented the removal of this language
appears to mean they do not have the discretion to decide on
a case by case, or year by year basis when it should be
done. She asked for comments.
SENATOR MILLER responded he had not seen HCSCSSB 215(STA).
He pointed out there has never been a grant issued under
this section of the law. He noted or school district had
been added because in some of the rural areas the school
district is really the governing body.
Number 392
CHAIRMAN VEZEY referred to the next change in Section 4,
page 7, line 12, where the word actual has been inserted
before the word "cost". This is to clarify what costs are
to be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if this addition had special
meaning.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY answered it was an attempt to clarify what
costs are. He noted actual cost is a narrower subject than
total cost.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified CHAIRMAN VEZEY was trying to
narrow the bill to things that can be directly attributable
by an accounting process. She asked this as opposed to
what.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY replied as opposed to costs that cannot be
compared to an expenditure.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS mentioned this addition may reduce
"in-kind trading" or exchange opportunities.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted costs do not necessarily have to be
cash.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG mentioned loss of use.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY directed to Section 20 for the next change
provided in HCSCSSB 215(STA). Section 20 deletes response
to "a threatened release" from uses of the response fund.
Section 20 also limits response uses of the prevention
account to larger spills of 2,500 barrels.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified the State Affairs version
would read "a release," not "a threatened release" as the
House Resources version reads on page 14, line 26.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY affirmed REPRESENTATIVE ULMER.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked the sponsor to comment.
SENATOR MILLER, for the committee's benefit, said he would
try to reconstruct what happened in the Senate to SB 215.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY mentioned he and the drafters, worked off the
Senate version so it would be easier for the two bodies to
compare their work.
Number 458
SENATOR MILLER stated originally they thought they were
passing a nickel surcharge to accumulate $50 million, which
would then go away. Over a period of time however, other
statutes were added which had other uses for those moneys.
This meant the state was having a hard time accumulating the
$50 million fund.
SENATOR MILLER noted last year REPRESENTATIVE GREEN
introduced legislation similar to SB 215 on the House side.
SB 215 was intended to correct the problems he noticed in
collecting the $50 million fund. The first concept entailed
$.02 to Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for
ongoing programs and $.03 to the $50 million fund. DEC,
however, came back and said they wanted to keep the $.05
whole.
SENATOR MILLER stated Senate Resources decided upon a 2.5
cent split. Industry was not satisfied with this. DEC
suggested $.02 for the response side and $.03 for the
prevention side. He pointed out that once SB 215 reached
Senate Finance, they felt it was a fair piece of legislation
with $.03 going to ongoing DEC programs and $.02 to the $50
million fund. He commented the other $37 million would be
transferred over to the response side.
SENATOR MILLER emphasized a lot of work has been done on SB
215. He believed it was in a form which the Administration
can and does support. He felt SB 215 supports the goal of
having ongoing funds, while at the same time providing a $50
million fund available to respond to spills. He mentioned
some people rely on the billion dollar federal fund which
could function the same; however, this would not benefit and
is not accessible to those in the Interior with the
pipeline. The federal fund applies to those communities on
the water.
SENATOR MILLER noted the accounting problems DEC had with
the nickel collections. He felt if proper accounting had
taken place as was intended, the $50 million would already
be in place and the nickel would be gone per their vote in
1989. He said he viewed SB 215 as adding a $.03 tax back
permanently.
SENATOR MILLER further stated he had not had a chance to
look over HCSCSSB 215(STA) and its ramifications.
Number 506
CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented they had gone considerably beyond
the scope of Section 20, which actually sets up the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned the change in Section 20,
whereby "threatened release" is deleted.
SENATOR MILLER responded he supported the version which came
out of the Senate.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY answered threatened releases are covered in
the fund created under Section 20, paragraph (2). The fund
created under Section 20, paragraph (1), had covered them
previously, but in the State Affairs version they are not.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER, looking for expertise, questioned the
significance of having "threatened release" in the bill.
Number 532
DAVID ROGERS, SPECIAL COUNCIL ON HCSCSSB 215, SENATE FINANCE
COMMITTEE, answered questions for the committee. He
believed the definitions for "threatened release" are in
Sections 41 and 42 of HCSCSSB 215(RES).
SENATOR MILLER noted in the Senate version definitions are
in Section 39.
MR. ROGERS pointed out the definitions tighten up an
existing definition in current law of "threatened release."
CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the question was "threatened
release" was included in both funds (1) and (2); however,
now it is only in fund (2). The implication, therefore, is
fund (1) cannot be used for a threatened release.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if the sponsor supported this.
SENATOR MILLER reiterated he supported the version which
came out of the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER said she interpreted this to mean
"threatened release" should also be in fund (1).
SENATOR MILLER replied, from his understanding, DEC has not
spent a lot of money on "smaller spills." He estimated $2-3
million had been spent. He felt they did a fair job at
spending the money. He noted there may be times when a
threatened release will need to be considered to keep it
from becoming a large release.
Number 557
CHAIRMAN VEZEY directed to Section 26 for the next change.
Section 26 also deletes response to a "threatened release"
as a use of the response fund.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS clarified there is a spill response
fund and a prevention fund. An interpretation of a threat
is that it is not a spill and it can be investigated from a
prevention standpoint.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY affirmed REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG suggested everyone in the committee
should read the definition of "threatened release" on page
26 of HCSCSSB 215(STA).
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented "threatened release" per
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG's suggestion, makes it sound imminent.
"Threatened" sounds like it may or may not happen. She
questioned if adequate response to an imminent, as opposed
to "threatened" release, might "raise the anti." She
inquired if this was the original reason for accessing both
funds.
SENATOR MILLER responded he would rather spend a little on
preventative maintenance rather than a lot on cleanup. He
noted the factor of immediate access to the funds on the
prevention side.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY pointed out imminence carries no time frame.
Certain problems, for example, can be addressed over five
years.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG mentioned he did not see anything in
HCSCSSB 215(STA) which would preclude the commissioner from
responding to a circumstance. He noted response is in the
judgment of the commissioner. He felt removing "threatened"
tightened the bill up a little bit.
Number 593
CHAIRMAN VEZEY concurred.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY directed to Section 29, page 22, line 6,
whereby the response fund is now limited to spills 2,500
barrels of oil, or larger. He pointed out this figure gets
out of the normal commercial storage size and into
industrial size storage capacities.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked the sponsor to comment on the
2,500 barrels of oil threshold.
SENATOR MILLER responded 2,500 does correspond with the
threshold on the grant side. He noted there had been
discussion in Senate Resources on this subject and there had
been concerns that even 100 barrels of oil in the Kenai
River in the wrong time of year would be a disaster.
Therefore, this was one of the reasons they did not provide
a limit in the Senate version. He noted 2,500 barrels has
been established in law on the grant side for some time.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified if the spill is 2,400 barrels
of oil as opposed to 2,500, the response fund money cannot
be used to clean it up.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY affirmed REPRESENTATIVE ULMER.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked what is used to clean it up.
Would the general fund be used.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY replied he believed there were options
available to the commissioner, other than the response fund.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY reiterated for those people who live along
the pipeline it is very important to have the response fund
readily available. He stated "2,500 barrels is going to be
a drop in the bucket if we have any major disaster."
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER requested testimony from DEC as to the
range of size of spills and what other sources they have for
the cleanup of spills less than 2,500 barrels.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY mentioned he had seen several statistics on
that matter and he felt if they were all added up, every
spill was in the order of a quarter a gallon.
Number 639
SENATOR MILLER pointed out with the way HCSCSSB 215(STA) is
worded, if the governor declares a disaster emergency they
still may be able to tap the fund. He was referring to the
bottom of page 21 and top of page 22.
MR. ROGERS commented it appeared there are two ways to reach
the fund: 1) By disaster emergency declared by the
Governor with no threshold spillage requirements; and 2) the
2,500 barrel minimum requirement in the nondisaster
emergency scenario.
Number 649
CHAIRMAN VEZEY directed to Section 31, whereby reporting
requirements are expanded to include investigating and
evaluating with prevention account monies. He referred to
page 23, line 4.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER noted the Resources committee version
of Section 31 amended AS 46.08.050(b). She asked if this
amendment was deleted from the State Affairs version.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he did not believe Section 31 from
either bill were comparable to each other.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER referred to page 23, line 28, of
HCSCSSB 215(STA) and noticed it amends AS 46.08.060(b). She
observed AS 46.08.050(b) was not amended in Section 31.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY explained AS 46.08.050(b) was amended in
Section 30 of HCSCSSB 215(STA), which he believed was
identical to the change in HCSCSSB 215(RES).
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER assumed HCSCSSB 215(STA), therefore,
picked up another section.
SENATOR MILLER commented that from his understanding,
basically just the requirement for the reporting on the
prevention account was also added. He agreed with the
accounting responsibilities.
TAPE 94-51, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked the sponsor to comment on the
splitting of the fund. Why put all of the $37 million on
the response side, as opposed to the prevention side.
SENATOR MILLER answered with the 60/40 split if the over
$112 million that has already been collected in nickels is
divided by 40 percent, it is certainly more than $37
million. Therefore, he felt the nickels that have been
collected have already been split 60/40.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER inquired what annual revenues would be
generated for both purposes if collected with a 3-2 split.
SENATOR MILLER answered assuming there is no production
increase, in FY 95 the $.03 would generate $15.6 million and
the $.02 would generate $10.4 million.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked how this roughly compares to the
current annual expenditures for prevention.
SENATOR MILLER estimated in the Senate version of the budget
[we] have between $13-14 million for those programs.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified this covered the total
package.
Number 060
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned the title because it
discusses marine highway vessels. She assumed HCSCSSB
215(STA) was not retroactive, whereby the money appropriated
for the new ferry would not be altered. She inquired if
there would not be any additional response for future
ferries.
SENATOR MILLER said REPRESENTATIVE ULMER was not totally
correct. He referred to page 20, lines 24, subparagraph
(E), whereby the fund will "pay all costs incurred to
acquire, repair, or improve an asset having an anticipated
life of more than one year and that is acquired, repaired or
improved as a preparedness measure by which the state may
respond to, recover from, reduce, or eliminate the effects
of a release or threatened release of oil or a hazardous
substance;". This would allow, for example, a command
center to be put in a ferry.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER inquired if this would include
telecommunications equipment and all other capital assets.
SENATOR MILLER said yes, because the capital asset is what
has the life of more than one year.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned if there was a dispute about
telecommunications equipment.
SENATOR MILLER answered he was not sure, but he believed an
appropriation from 1993 was disputed as to whether they had
the authority under current law to use that money for an
emergency response center. HCSCSSB 215(STA) clarifies this
account can be used for that purpose.
MR. ROGERS clarified the money would come out of the
prevention account.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to pass HCSCSSB 215(STA) from committee
with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER objected because she had questions for
DEC.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY recognized REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's objection
and asked the committee secretary to call the roll.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER interjected and implored CHAIRMAN VEZEY
to allow testimony from DEC. She emphasized the sponsor had
not yet reviewed HCSCSSB 215(STA).
CHAIRMAN VEZEY called REPRESENTATIVE ULMER out of order.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the
roll.
IN FAVOR: REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, KOTT, G. DAVIS,
SANDERS, OLBERG.
OPPOSED: REPRESENTATIVES ULMER, B. DAVIS.
MOTION PASSED
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN VEZEY, having no further business before the
committee, adjourned the meeting at 9:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|