Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/05/1996 10:05 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
5 May 1996
10:05 A.M.
TAPES
SFC-96, #111, Side 1 and 2
SFC-96, #112, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 10:05 A.M.
PRESENT
In addition to co-chairman Halford, co-chairman Frank,
Senators Phillips, Sharp, Donley, Rieger and Zharoff were
present when the meeting convened.
Also Attending: Richard Vitale, staff aide to Representative
Parnell; Laurie Otto, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law; Chris Christensen, Staff
Counsel, Alaska Court System; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant
Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law;
George Dozier, Jr., staff aide to Representative Pete Kott;
John Barnett, Executive Director, Board of Storage Tank
Assistance, Division of Spill Prevention, Department of
Environmental Conservation; Virginia Stonkus and Dave
Tonkovich, Fiscal Analysts, Legislative Finance Division;
and aides to committee members.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 314(JUD)
"An Act relating to domestic violence and to crime victims
and witnesses; amending Rules 3, 4, 65, and 100, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 505 and 613, Alaska Rules of
Evidence, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration; and
providing for an effective date."
Richard Vitale, staff aide to Representative Parnell
testified on behalf of the bill. Laurie Otto was invited to
join the committee and answered questions from members.
Chris Christensen said the Courts would like to see
mediation banned. Senator Donley moved a conceptual
amendment and without objection it was adopted. He moved
amendment #2 and without objection it was adopted. Senator
Rieger moved SCS CSHB 314(FIN) and without objection it was
adopted with individual recommendations and fiscal notes of
$52.5 Department of Public Safety/AST; $55.0 department of
Public Safety/CDVSA; zero Department of Administration/OPA;
$55.0 Department of Corrections; zero Department of Public
Safety/Criminal Records; and $108.5 Alaska Court System.
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 202(JUD)
"An Act relating to the participation and accountability of
parents and guardians and the enforcement of restitution
orders entered in juvenile delinquency proceedings; relating
to claims on permanent fund dividends for certain
court-ordered treatment in juvenile delinquency proceedings;
and amending Alaska Delinquency Rules 3(b) and 8(b); and
providing for an effective date."
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General was invited to
join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill.
Senator Donley moved revisor amendment and without objection
it was adopted. Senator Donley moved SCS CSHB 202(FIN) and
without objection it was reported out with individual
recommendations and fiscal note of $5.0 from the Alaska
Court System.
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 204(JUD)
"An Act relating to the administrative revocation of a
minor's license to drive; creating criminal offenses of
minor operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol, a minor's
refusal to submit to chemical test, and driving during the
24 hours after being cited for minor operating a vehicle
after consuming alcohol or refusal to submit to chemical
test; establishing penalties for these offenses; relating to
court ordered drug and alcohol screening, evaluation,
referral, and programs; relating to implied consent to
certain testing if operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or
watercraft; relating to an instrument's working tolerance in
a chemical breath test; relating to the authority of a court
to impose a suspended sentence after failure to complete a
treatment program upon conviction of felony driving while
intoxicated or felony refusal to submit to a chemical test;
relating to the period of time a court may consider for
determining prior convictions in sentencing a person
convicted of felony driving while intoxicated or felony
refusal to submit to a chemical test; amending Rules 6 and
32.1, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, to allow the use
of hearsay evidence before a grand jury in a prosecution for
felony driving while intoxicated or felony refusal to submit
to a chemical test and to not require a presentence report
for a first felony driving while intoxicated or first felony
refusal to submit to a chemical test; and providing for an
effective date."
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General was invited to
join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill.
Laurie Otto was also invited to join the committee and
answered questions for members. Senator Donley moved a
conceptual amendment and without objection it was adopted.
Senator Sharp moved SCS CSHB 204(FIN) and without objection
it was reported out with individual recommendations and zero
fiscal notes from Department of Health and Social
Services/Alcohol Safety Action Program; Department of Public
Safety/AST; Department of Public Safety/Driver Services;
Department of Law/Criminal; Department of
Administration/PDA; Department of Administration/OPA; and
the Alaska Court System.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 456(L&C)
"An Act relating to the Board of Storage Tank Assistance;
and providing for an effective date."
George Dozier, Jr., staff aide to Representative Kott
testified; John Barnett, Department of Environmental
Conservation testified and answered questions by members.
Senator Phillips and Senator Sharp moved amendment #1 and
without objection it was adopted. Senator Phillips moved
CSHB 456(FIN) and without objection it was reported out with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note from
Department of Environmental Conservation.
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 314(JUD)
"An Act relating to domestic violence and to crime
victims and witnesses; amending Rules 3, 4, 65, and 100,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 505 and 613,
Alaska Rules of Evidence, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of
Administration; and providing for an effective date."
Co-chairman Halford introduced the bill and said he wanted
to spend enough time to know that the committee was
achieving a balance between protecting those in immediate
danger and the converse side which in some cases would be
punishment before trial and before determination of guilt.
That is a difficult area to strike a reasonable balance. By
the same token there are people being killed because there
is no protection before a determination of guilt because the
system does not react that fast.
Richard Vitale, staff aide to Representative Parnell was
invited to join the committee. He said the major changes to
current practice would be that of the protective orders
going from 90 days, with a 45 day extension, to six months.
Ex parte orders, which were emergency orders under current
law, stay at 20 days. There is also a new emergency 3-day
order, another model code suggestion. Other points include
training for police agencies and other professionals that
encounter domestic violence and a central protective order
registry system so restraining orders can be tracked.
Co-chairman Halford referred to adjustments in the new CS.
One was the elimination of defense that the subject of the
order was invited back on the premises to fix something or
to see children; another was the duration of time. Senator
Sharp referred to page 21, lines 18 - 20 and asked if this
section expanded the role of the office of the public
advocate counsel beyond where they are now.
Laurie Otto, Criminal Division, Department of Law was
invited to join the committee. She said this was current
practice. This section was requested by the office of the
public advocate to narrow the circumstances in which they
could be appointed and not allow it be expanded further.
The Court is presently appointing them very rarely.
Further, she said the petitions were civil and not criminal
actions. Individuals under eighteen years of age may not
file civil actions. Minors are considered incompetent to do
that. Senator Sharp further referred to page 23, lines 19 -
21 (e) which says the court may not deny a petition no
matter how long the period of time has been since the act of
domestic violence happened. He wanted to know what
constraints were in place that would enable denial of
petition if a considerable lapse of time had occurred since
the act of violence. Ms. Otto said this section was the
topic of considerable discussion in the judiciary committee.
The chair of that committee felt strongly this language
should stay in as written. They felt if a limit were put
in, it would be artificial. This is better left to the
discretion of the court. Co-chairman Halford said this was
already left to the discretion of the court. Ms. Otto
referred to the problems with rural areas being able to file
a petition timely. Senator Sharp said he would be more
comfortable if the intent were more specific. He said he
would prefer a requirement that the court find the victim
was under definite threat, in order to keep retaliation in
check. The victim should have to act in a reasonable length
of time. In response to discussion between Senators Sharp
and Rieger, Ms. Otto said it was better to leave the matter
to the court's discretion as the judiciary is better able to
weigh all the conditions.
Co-chairman Halford referred to a hypothetical dysfunctional
couple with alcohol problems. In response to the co-
chairman, Ms. Otto said there is a provision that says in
getting a protective order the court requires full
disclosure of any other matters pending. It is necessary to
protect those individuals who need it, but likewise not give
others a vehicle for abusing the system. This model code
was developed by the National Council on Juvenile and Family
Court Judges. They are the ones who see these cases and see
the abuses all the time.
Senator Donley asked about mediation provisions of the bill.
Mr. Vitale said the sponsor liked the original version of
the bill which did not included the amendment referred to by
Senator Donley. This would allow the court to recommend
mediation if three standards were met: the victim agreed to
the mediation, a representative was at the mediation, and
the mediator was trained in domestic violence cases. The
original language, as introduced by the sponsor, only
allowed mediation in domestic violence situations when the
victim requested it, had a representative present during the
mediation, and the mediator was trained in domestic
violence. The judiciary adopted an amendment to allow the
court to recommend mediation to the parties. The sponsor
preferred that amendment not be included but it did not
break the bill for him. Ms. Otto said mediation was
premised on the parties partaking on equal standing, and the
mediator will help the parties reach an agreement. In
domestic violence cases the parties do not have equal
standing. Both the Canadian and American Society of
Mediators have recommended against mediation in domestic
violence cases. In many cases, armed guards are present
during these mediations due to the possibility of the
mediation triggering further assaults or violence.
Chris Christensen, Alaska Court System was invited to join
the committee. He said the court would like to see
mediation banned in domestic violence cases. While a small
number of cases are referred for mediation, once the matter
reaches the court, mediation is pretty much useless. In
response to Senator Donley, Mr. Christensen said he did not
think the court system would object to the addition of
language providing that if the court suggested mediation, it
advise the parties they have the right not to agree to
mediation, and their decision will not bias the court.
Senator Zharoff referred to sections 33 and 28 regarding if
the victim is notified of all rights concerned with filing a
petition and if granted the protective order would only be
good for six months. Ms. Otto indicated that was correct
and the petition could be filed at any time after the
commission of the abuse. She said that if there is a
significant lapse of time, the court is unlikely to grant
anything beyond that indicated on page 21, lines 30 - 31 and
page 22, lines 1 - 3. That would be the minimum protection
and is adequate for many. In response to a question from
Senator Zharoff, Ms. Otto said she did not know if VPSO's
were required to be certified as peace officers to handle
domestic violence cases. Ms. Anne Carpeneti, Department of
Law indicated that they were.
(tape SF-96, #111, switch to side 2)
Ms. Otto explained that under a civil proceeding 6-month
orders give full due process rights. This process is used
every day in this state to make fairly significant decisions
against people. However, there is a provision for
modification of protective orders (page 24, line 27). She
explained the language on page 25, line 2 and said it was
verbatim current law. She said the court had to schedule a
hearing within twenty days. She explained that under an ex
parte order the court would have to schedule a hearing
within three days. Senator Rieger referred to the
restrictions on the perpetrator and asked if the language
permitted restriction on the activity of the petitioner.
Ms. Otto said there were no restrictions but the respondent
could also file a protective order against the petitioner.
She further said the court could not issue both parties a
restraining order under one petition. She explained why
mutual restraining orders were not issued. There also needs
to be proof of a crime before an order could be entered.
Senator Phillips referred to section 28. Ms. Otto said it
referred to the advisement that police officers need to
give victims and it was a summary of the bill. Senator
Zharoff commented on section 28 and said it was like the
victim's Miranda rights. Ms. Otto concurred and said the
court had the discretion to order any or all of the things
that are listed under this section. However, this does not
expand the powers of the Court, and it does not give new
rights for the victim.
Laurie Hugenin, executive director, Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault was invited to join the
committee. Some of the concerns she addressed were the
limitation on protective order time, specifically the first
and second elements that could be granted in a protective
order, asking respondents to not continue to break the law
or commit domestic violence, not harass, stalk or intimidate
the victim. Another item she addressed was mediation. As
suggested by American Bar Association reports in both 1993
and 1994, mediation in divorce, custody, and domestic
violence cases is not appropriate. Mediation was
detrimental for the victim and children. She voiced concern
over court ordered mediation and said there were other
avenues that could be explored. The network concurred with
most sections of the bill. She further cited that there
were thirteen murders in Anchorage directly related to
domestic violence.
Senator Phillips asked what the standing of the sponsor was,
and Mr. Vitale said they supported the bill without the
amendment that was put in judiciary. Co-chairman Halford
referred to the orders with extension of time and said he
did not disagree with those, however, because they
represented a punishment before trial, he asked if they
would apply in taking property away. Ms. Otto said the only
things that lasted indefinitely were prohibiting the
respondent from threatening or committing another act of
violence and prohibiting the respondent from stalking or
harassing, directing the person to stay away from the
residence, school and prohibiting the respondent from
entering a propelled vehicle in the possession or control of
the petitioner. Co-chairman Halford said his concern was
that the propelled vehicle may be that of the respondent.
The home may be that of the respondent, The location of
these items may be the home of the respondent, and it may
have been the respondent's home for twenty years and the
home of the victim for six months. He said there was some
serious trampling of constitutional rights but as long as it
was of short duration and really necessary it was supported.
Ms. Hugenin asked if the chairman would consider putting
harassing and stalking into the first element that could be
asked for and have that element be indefinite. Senator
Donley moved that as a conceptual amendment. Co-chairman
Halford suggested that number one could be a perpetual order
and include stalking and harassing. Senator Phillips
opposed the amendment. Co-chairman Halford said they would
go back to the version that Representative Parnell had
before it came to the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. Vitale
said the sponsor would support that. Upon a vote by the
committee the conceptual amendment was adopted without
objection.
Senator Donley moved amendment #1 which would delete the
ability to recommend mediation. Senator Phillips objected.
Co-chairman Halford said he supported amendment #2 but was
willing to go with the Court system on amendment #1 and not
support it. Mr. Vitale voiced his concern of a possible bad
mediator because, as he pointed out, state mediators have no
licenses or regulations. Senator Zharoff opposed the
amendment and said the court was only proposing mediation.
Upon a vote by the committee amendment #1 failed to be
adopted. Senator Donley moved amendment #2 and said it
should be inserted wherever appropriate in the bill. Ms.
Otto said it would go three places in the bill which
referred to mediation. Upon a vote by the committee
amendment #2 was adopted without objection.
Co-chairman Halford asked for an update on the fiscal note
from Department of Public Safety.
Senator Rieger moved SCS CSHB 314(FIN) and without objection
it was reported out with individual recommendations and
fiscal notes of $52.5 Department of Public Safety/AST; $55.0
Department of Public Safety/CDVSA; zero Department of
Administration/OPA; $55.0 Department of Corrections; zero
Department of Public Safety/Criminal Records; and $108.5
Alaska Court System.
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 202(JUD)
"An Act relating to the participation and
accountability of parents and guardians and the
enforcement of restitution orders entered in juvenile
delinquency proceedings; relating to claims on permanent
fund dividends for certain court-ordered treatment in
juvenile delinquency proceedings; and amending Alaska
Delinquency Rules 3(b) and 8(b); and providing for an
effective date."
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General was invited to
join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill. She
said this would make participation of parents at juvenile
hearings mandatory. The Court was allowed the discretion to
impose a fine that would motivate a parent. In response to
Senator Phillips she said a $50 fine would motivate many
parents. It would further allow the court to order the
parents to participate in treatment and to pay for the
treatment. If the court found the parents to be indigent it
would allow the department to garnish their permanent fund
dividend to pay for the treatment. It would not include
treatment for the children.
Senator Donley said he supported this bill. Ms. Carpeneti
said the bill was very obvious and did not need further
study. Parents should be participating if there is any
progress to be made in treatment of the child. She
advised the committee that there was a $5,000 fiscal note
from the court system regarding sending out summonses to
parents. Senator Donley asked if there was any provision to
confiscate the permanent fund dividend from the juvenile and
Ms. Carpeneti said not in this bill. This bill would
address the responsibility of parents in connection with
juvenile proceedings against their children. She indicated
there was a provision for restitution to be made by the
juvenile.
Senator Donley moved revisor amendment. Ms. Carpeneti said
the amendment would give the revisor statutes instructions
on how the bill would fit into the code revision of HB 387.
If HB 387 becomes law this would be transferred into AS
47.12. Without objection the revisor's amendment was
adopted. Senator Donley moved SCS CSHB 202(FIN) and without
objection it was reported out with individual
recommendations and fiscal note of $5.0 from the Alaska
Court System.
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 204(JUD)
"An Act relating to the administrative revocation of a
minor's license to drive; creating criminal offenses of
minor operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol, a
minor's refusal to submit to chemical test, and driving
during the 24 hours after being cited for minor
operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol or refusal
to submit to chemical test; establishing penalties for
these offenses; relating to court ordered drug and alcohol
screening, evaluation, referral, and programs; relating
to implied consent to certain testing if operating a
motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft; relating t o a n
instrument's working tolerance in a chemical breath test;
relating to the authority of a court to impose a suspended
sentence after failure to complete a treatment program
upon conviction of felony driving while intoxicated o r
felony refusal to submit to a chemical test; relating to
the period of time a court may consider for determining
prior convictions in sentencing a person convicted of
felony driving while intoxicated or felony refusal to
submit to a chemical test; amending Rules 6 and 32.1,
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, to allow the use of
hearsay evidence before a grand jury in a prosecution for
felony driving while intoxicated or felony refusal to
submit to a chemical test and to not require a
presentence report for a first felony driving while
intoxicated or first felony refusal to submit to a
chemical test; and providing for an effective date."
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General was invited to
join the committee and testified on behalf of the bill. She
referred to the inexperience of children who drive combined
with the use of alcohol results in a deadly combination.
This bill would add three new statutes to Title 28 which
would provide that children would not be allowed to drive
after having had any amount of alcohol. A person who would
be arrested for probable cause for drinking and driving, if
they would refuse a breath test, they could also be cited
for that. It would require a peace officer that arrested a
child for drinking and driving or refusal to take a
breathalyzer must give them a warning that they would not be
allowed to drive within a 24-hour period after they had been
cited. The offenses are violations with the provision of
maximum of $1,000 fine plus community work service or
combination of both. Pending a child's conviction they
would be subject to administrative revocation of their
driver's license or privilege to drive. First offense would
be 90 days under the provisions adopted by the legislature
last year. She noted there were four clean-up issues to the
felony drunk driver statute passed last year. It would
allow computer printouts rather than certified copies of the
judgments of prior DWI convictions to be presented to the
Grand Jury.
(tape change to SF-96, #112, side 1)
Senator Sharp asked if this bill only applied to juveniles
and Ms. Carpeneti said the zero tolerance provisions in this
bill apply to all under 21. She said the felony clean-up
provision applied to all felony DWI cases. Senator Donley
asked her to explain the zero tolerance level. She said
this bill adopted zero tolerance level approach to drinking
and driving for juveniles. If a police officer at the time
of a stop has probable cause to believe the juvenile has
been drinking before driving the officer would take the
individual to the nearest police station for a breathalyzer.
If the juvenile blows any amount of alcohol in their blood
stream they will be cited for driving after drinking.
Senator Donley said he supported this bill and he is
convinced this is an important step. The medical evidence
is overwhelming that alcohol has a much greater impact on
the driving ability of young drivers than on experienced
drivers. In response to comments by Senator Rieger Ms.
Carpeneti said it was already illegal for juveniles to drink
but it was far more serious for them to drink and drive.
Senator Donley referred to the section dealing with the
suspended imposition of sentence. She said the court in
sentencing an individual for DWI is required to sentence the
person to be screened and may also provide in the court
order the treatment suggested by the screening agency,
including in-patient treatment. If the individual failed to
complete the treatment ordered the statute required the
sentencing judge to impose the entire remaining suspended
time of incarceration without discretion as to how much time
was appropriate. This bill would amend it to allow the
court to send the person back to treatment. Alcohol
treatment does not usually take on the first try and
sometimes it will take two or three times. This would allow
the court to send the individual back into treatment and
also gives the court the discretion of partial imposition of
sentence. Senator Donley felt this was a step backward.
Ms. Carpeneti said the sponsor of the bill is in support of
this specific provision and MADD supports the bill also.
Senator Rieger asked if other hearsay evidence is acceptable
to a grand jury and Ms. Carpeneti said generally hearsay
evidence is not admissable at a grand jury. This bill would
allow an exception for the use of computer print-outs for
prior records. She explained what "hearsay" evidence was
and that in usual circumstances a document must be
authenticated by an individual before it is admissible. She
referred to page 11 and the Breath Test Result Validity.
Under this test the court would accept the results without
having to make adjustments for margin of error or working
tolerances. Senator Rieger said .02 was a working threshold
but basically meant zero tolerance. Ms. Carpeneti said
children need to get the message that the tolerance level is
zero. She felt using the .02 would give children the
message that it was o.k. to drink if one did not exceed the
.02 level. Co-chairman Halford commented on section 17 and
Ms. Carpeneti said it was added on the floor. She said this
was not in the original bill and did not feel it was
necessary to have in. Co-chairman Halford said all
violations would be based on a statistical violation that
would be beyond the instruments tolerance to zero. Senator
Donley said most cases are not prosecuted under .12 because
it had been established there was a .02 discrepancy in
breathalyzers. It is difficult to obtain convictions if one
is below .12 rather than .1.
Laurie Otto, Criminal Division, Department of Law was
invited to join the committee. She concurred with Senator
Donley. She said most cases registering .11 were within the
limits and would not be prosecuted. What is needed to be
shown now in DWI cases was that the machine was working and
was calibrated correctly. Ms. Otto said that since it is
known the margin of error is above what the offense level is
it would be a logical amendment. This would make a better
statute. Senator Donley said he would move that as a
conceptual amendment. Discussion took place between
Senators Donley and Rieger regarding blood alcohol levels.
Co-chairman Halford asked if there was objection to the
conceptual amendment that applies the machine tolerance to
all statutes on the books currently except the new zero
tolerance for minors and there being no objection the
conceptual amendment was adopted. Senator Zharoff asked if
there would be a message to young people that it would not
be o.k. to drink and drive but it would be o.k. to drink at
home but Ms. Carpeneti said she did not feel that was the
message. There was still a prohibition on minor consuming.
Senator Sharp moved SCS CSHB 204(FIN) and without objection
it was reported out with individual recommendations and zero
fiscal notes from Department of Health and Social
Services/Alcohol SAFety Action Program; Department of Public
Safety/AST; Department of Public Safety/Driver Services;
Department of Law/Criminal; Department of
Administration/PDA; Department of Administration/OPA; and
the Alaska Court System.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 456(L&C)
"An Act relating to the Board of Storage Tank
Assistance; and providing for an effective date."
George Dozier, staff aide to Representative Kott testified
on behalf of the bill. He said this bill was due to sunset
this year. Legislative audit recommended the board be
extended and that a public member be added to the board.
This bill would also take care of those recommendations.
John Barnett, executive director, storage tank assistance,
DEC was invited to join the committee. He reviewed the
legislative history. He explained the amendment co-chairman
Halford requested be drafted. The current storage tank
assistance program does not limit eligibility for financial
assistance. If one has a regulated tank and pays a
registration fee, they are able to receive financial
assistance without regard to financial need. The board has
worked up criteria related to rural locations, number of
facilities owned by the oeprator and some other criteria.
It will retain the public health threat criteria as the
greatest emphasis to be put on sites; and also the inability
to demonstrate the financial responsibility requirements as
set out by the
Federal Government. The financial responsibility
requirements require pollution liability insurance or self
insurability. Mr. Barnett said the federal government
defined small companies through financial responsibility as
twelve tanks or less. This would be consistent with the
federal requirements. The failure of a tank owner to meet
financial responsibility under federal law is a fine of
$10,000/day. He said sites would be ranked with six tanks
or less with higher points than twelve tanks or less because
it is a set criteria the board could consider in ranking.
Co-chairman Halford said he felt smaller entities should
have a higher priority. Mr. Barnett said the Alaska
Underground Tank Owners and Operators supported ten tanks;
the department made the suggestion of twelve. He was sure
there would be no objection if the committee wanted to
initially reduce it to ten on this amendment. Twelve was
considered consistent with federal rules. Co-chairman
Halford said he has opposed this bill in the past because
there are four elements: testing, clean-up, closure and
granting individuals money to purchase new tanks. At some
point the spill should not be rewarded. The upgrade portion
is the one that has the most opposition.
Senators Phillips and Sharp moved amendment #1 regarding
tank cleanup program. Mr. Dozier said the sponsor would
have no objection to the amendment. Without objection the
amendment was adopted. Senator Phillips moved SCS CSHB
456(FIN) and without objection it was reported out with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note from
Department of Environmental Conservation.
ADJOURNMENT
Senator Halford recessed at 12:24 P.M. subject to call of
the chair.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|