Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/09/1998 03:30 PM 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
9 May, 1998
3:30 p.m.
TAPES
SFC 98 # 165, Side A (000-590)
Side B (590-537)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Bert Sharp, Co-Chair, reconvened the meeting at
approximately 3:30 p.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-Chair Sharp, Senators Pearce, Donley,
Torgerson, Adams, Parnell and Phillips were present when the
meeting was convened.
Also Attending: Representative JOE RYAN; RUSS WEBB, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services;
SUSAN WIBKER, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law; CAROL CARROLE,
Director, Division of Support Services, Department of
Natural Resources; NICO BUS, Administrative Services
Manager, DSS, DNR; BRUCE RICHARDS, Program Coordinator,
Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections; MIKE
GREANY, Director, Division of Legislative Finance and aides
to committee members and other members of the Legislature.
via Teleconference: From Anchorage: DUANE UDLAND, Chief,
Anchorage Police Department.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 393(RES)
"An Act relating to contracts with the state
establishing payments in lieu of other taxes by a
qualified sponsor or qualified sponsor group for
projects to develop stranded gas resources in the
state; providing for the inclusion in the contracts of
terms making certain adjustments regarding royalty
value and the timing and notice of the state's right to
take royalty in kind or in value from projects to
develop stranded gas resources in the state; relating
to the effect of the contracts on municipal taxation;
and providing for an effective date."
Senator Adams began by offering a motion to rescind previous
action taken on Amendment #2, where it failed to be adopted.
Senator Phillips wanted to clarify that the sponsor had no
objection to that amendment. Co-Chair Sharp stated that
Representative Ramona Barnes, Chair of the House Oil and Gas
Committee, which sponsored the bill, had no problem with the
proposed change. Senator Phillips wondered why then he was
getting so many phone calls in opposition. Senator
Torgerson shared with committee members that he had a
conversation with Representative Mark Hodgins and the
representative told him he had no objection to the
amendment.
Without objection, action taken on Amendment #2 was
rescinded.
Senator Adams then moved for adoption of Amendment #2.
There was no objection and Co-Chair Sharp ordered it
adopted.
With that, Senator Adams offered a motion to move from
committee, SCS CS HB 393 (FIN) with accompanying fiscal
notes. Co-Chair Sharp so ordered, as there was no
objection.
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 375(JUD)
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 375(FIN) am(reengrossed)
"An Act relating to children-in-need-of-aid matters and
proceedings; relating to child abuse and neglect;
relating to kidnapping and the crime of endangering the
welfare of a child; relating to sentencing for certain
crimes; relating to the state medical examiner and
reviews of child fatalities; relating to modification
of child support orders by the child support
enforcement agency; relating to access to,
confidentiality of, and release of certain information
concerning children, child abuse and neglect, and child
fatalities; authorizing the Department of Health and
Social Services to enter into an interstate compact
concerning adoption and medical assistance for certain
children with special needs; relating to the review of
cases involving certain children who are in the custody
of the state; authorizing the establishment of
multidisciplinary child protection teams and relating
to their duties; relating to persons required to report
suspected child abuse or neglect; relating to foster
care and foster parents; relating to access to certain
criminal justice information and licensure of certain
child care facilities; amending Rule 218, Alaska Rules
of Appellate Procedure; and amending Rules 3, 7, 10,
15, 18, 19, and 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules."
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 375(JUD)
"An Act relating to children-in-need-of-aid matters and
proceedings; relating to child abuse and neglect;
relating to kidnapping and the crime of endangering the
welfare of a child; relating to sentencing for certain
crimes; relating to the state medical examiner and
reviews of child fatalities; relating to modification
of child support orders by the child support
enforcement agency; relating to access to,
confidentiality of, and release of certain information
concerning children, child abuse and neglect, and child
fatalities; authorizing the Department of Health and
Social Services to enter into an interstate compact
concerning adoption and medical assistance for certain
children with special needs; relating to the review of
cases involving certain children who are in the custody
of the state; authorizing the establishment of
multidisciplinary child protection teams and relating
to their duties; relating to persons required to report
suspected child abuse or neglect; relating to foster
care and foster parents; relating to access to certain
criminal justice information and licensure of certain
child care facilities; amending Rule 218, Alaska Rules
of Appellate Procedure; and amending Rules 3, 7, 10,
15, 18, 19, and 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules."
Co-Chair Sharp noted this was a priority bill that was just
received by the committee.
Senator Adams wanted to know the department's position on
the legislation. Co-Chair Sharp called upon SUSAN WIBKER,
Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Law, and
asked her to briefly explain the bill. He wanted to know
which provisions were federally mandatory. She introduced
herself and spoke as follows:
"...I am a state attorney on child abuse cases. Prior to
that, I served five years in the District Attorney's office
as a prosecutor of child sexual abuse cases. And prior to
that, I spent nine years as a councilor to abused children.
I researched and worked on this bill for the department."
"The bill makes several major changes to the way that social
workers would practice every day. The first thing it does
is bring our state law in conformity with the federally
mandated changes that you mentioned. It also changes our
state law to fit several Supreme Court opinions that
recently came down advising the department to revise its
statutes."
"It's also a response to a Kemp Center audit that
Commissioner Perdue requested, which concluded that our
state statutes were some of the most narrow and restrictive
statutes in the country, and did not allow social workers to
adequately assess high risk situations."
"It also addresses the bipartisan Child Protection Review
Team report that was issued in December of '97 that made 24
recommendations for changing practice and law. Those
recommendations are contained in this bill."
"I can answer questions in whatever fashion the chairman
would like."
At this point, RUSS WEBB, the Deputy Commissioner of the
Department of Health and Social Services joined the
discussion and testified as follows:
"To respond directly to Senator Adam's question, the
department supports this bill."
Senator Phillips asked if the audit referred to was a
Legislative Budget and Audit report. Ms. Wibker explained
that it was a Kemp Center audit requested after a six-year-
old, sexually assaulted girl died.
Mr. Webb noted that there was a LB&A audit issued April 7,
and it made recommendations that were addressed in this
bill.
He also pointed out that the bill had a more recent version
from the Senate Judicial Committee that was not included in
the committee's packet. The reason for this was the short
timeframe and copies of the latest version were not ready
for distribution. He noted that it only contained minor
changes. He detailed the two changes for the committee's
benefit.
Senator Phillips asked if the language in this bill tracked
with that of HB 245. Ms. Wibker replied that it had been
tightened up and described the types of crime a child must
witness to be considered placing the child at risk of mental
injury. Amendments were made in the House and again in the
Senate Judiciary Committee to narrow the scope to homicide,
sexual assault, or battery committed by one parent toward
the other and witnessed by the child.
Senator Phillips wanted to know if the definition of
domestic violence for HB 375 was the same as described in HB
245, which Mr. Webb affirmed.
Co-Chair Sharp asked if the changes made in the Judiciary
version affected the fiscal notes. He was told they did
not.
Senator Torgerson requested he be allowed to abstain from
voting on this legislation. The reason was that his home
was a licensed for foster care and this bill might affect
him in some manner. Co-Chair Sharp objected and Senator
Torgerson was required to vote.
Senator Adams stated that his normal procedure would be to
object to taking action on a bill version that hadn't yet
been seen by the committee. However, he was satisfied with
the explanation of the changes given by Mr. Webb and would
not object to taking action at this time.
Senator Pearce offered a motion to move SCS CS HB 275 (JUD)
from committee with the understanding that the accompanying
fiscal notes would not change. Co-Chair Sharp noted for the
record that this bill, if it became law, would add four
full-time and two part-time state employees. The bill was
reported out of committee without objection.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 272(FIN)
"An Act relating to allowing the commissioner of
corrections to allow a prisoner to serve a term of
imprisonment or period of temporary commitment by
electronic monitoring; and relating to the crime of
escape."
Co-Chair Sharp called upon JEFF LOGAN, aid to Representative
Joe Green, the bill's sponsor. Mr. Logan testified as
follows:
"Mr. Chairman, HB 272 allows the commissioner of corrections
to designate that a prisoner serve a term, or a portion of a
term, under temporary confinement using electronic
monitoring equipment."
"The bill established the crime of escape in the second and
third degree for - or second and fourth degree excuse me -
for removing or tampering with the electronic monitoring
equipment, excludes prisoners who are - who have
perpetrators of domestic violence from electronic
monitoring. They are not eligible."
"And establishes a list of criteria for the commissioner to
determine - or to consider when she's determining who will
serve with the electronic monitoring equipment."
"I'll note that it has support from the Administration. The
version before you has substantially been worked on by the
Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches and had good
support in the House."
"Stop there and be glad to answer any questions."
Senator Pearce referred to the court order requiring the
State Of Alaska to take action to reduce prison overcrowding
and the plan the Administration submitted to Judge Hunt as a
proposed compliance solution. She wanted to know if the
electronic monitoring program was included in that plan.
Mr. Logan replied that it was included. She then spoke of
the Conference Committee's efforts in establishing the FY 99
Operating Budget and if funding for this program should be
included in those talks, as she thought it was.
To respond to Senator Pearce's questions, BRUCE RICHARDS
from the Department of Corrections came to the table and
spoke as follows:
"Senator Pearce, you're correct. There is money in the
Senate budget for electronic monitoring. And you're right,
you don't need it in both places. I think what would be
preferable is to have the bill go through since it does have
language in it dealing with escape provisions for removing
or tampering with electronic monitoring devices."
Senator Pearce interjected with another question about the
funding that was inaudible. Mr. Richards responded as
follows:
"The other difference in the funding is the Senate side it's
one hundred percent program receipts, I believe, and in the
fiscal note from the House Finance Committee, part of the
funding is general funds. The department believes that it's
going to be difficult to operate this program completely on
program receipts. It would be roughly close to $350 a month
per person to pay for electronic monitoring, about $11.70 a
day."
Co-Chair Sharp found where it was proposed that up to 60
prisoners would be involved in this program. Was that the
equivalent of sixty prison beds, he asked and was assured
that it was. He reconfirmed that this would be part of the
overcrowding solution. There was no savings indicated, he
pointed out.
Senator Pearce responded that there would be no savings. In
answer to Co-Chair Sharp's next question of why it then
should be done, she stated that there was no savings in
obeying a court order. However, to incarcerate 60 prisoners
through electronic monitoring was less expensive than to
house them in existing state prisons, build new facilities
or transfer out of state. She reminded the committee that
the court order cost the state between eight and 11 million
dollars per year.
She shared that the DOC in the past had not been favorable
to and electronic monitoring program, but would try it in an
attempt to comply with the court order.
Co-Chair Sharp agreed and noted other proposed solutions
listed in the plan. These included tents located on prison
grounds and shipping inmates out of state. Senator Pearce
stated that the plan also included the 60 electronic
monitoring spots.
Senator Donley said the reason financial savings were not
shown was because the program would accommodate inmates
backlogged in the system.
Co-Chair Sharp complained that he had never seen a copy of
the complete proposed plan. He wanted a breakdown of what
each program would entail and their expected accomplishments
at easing the overcrowding. Senator Pearce confirmed that,
while the committee had seen portions of the plan, including
the request for supplemental funds for the FY98 budget, they
had never been provided with the complete plan. Mr.
Richards said he would get copies of the plan for the
committee members.
Mr. Richards said the initial request for funding did not
include the electronic monitoring because the program would
not have been on-line in time to meet the court order's
first deadline. He stressed that even as the deadlines were
met, the number of inmates would continue to increase. The
state was seeing a rise of about 300 inmates per year.
Therefore there needed to be some sort of maintenance beds
in place to keep up with the increase. Electronic
monitoring was part of that program, he stated.
Senator Donley felt that with the commitment from the
department to furnish the committee with the complete plan,
he felt this was a good bill and an important component in
dealing with the overcrowding. He offered a motion to move
CS HB 272 (FIN) from committee with accompanying fiscal
notes. There was no objection and Co-Chair Sharp so
ordered.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 252(FIN)
"An Act relating to criminal records; relating to
notice about and registration of sex offenders and
child kidnappers; and amending Rules 11(c) and 32(c),
Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for
an effective date."
Co-Chair Sharp requested someone from the bill sponsor,
Representative Joe Ryan's office, speak to the bill. TRACY
ASH came to the table and told the committee that
Representative Ryan would be there shortly as soon as the
Call on the House was lifted. She was not familiar with the
bill enough to answer questions, but she offered to go
through the sectional analysis and sponsor statement for the
committee. She read aloud as follows:
"HB 252 makes changes to the sex offenders registration laws
to bring them into compliance with recent changes in federal
law."
"It requires child kidnappers, those who promote child
prostitution and those who solicit and conspire to commit
these offenses, to register in addition to sex offender."
"Offenders who must register must provide quarterly
verification via post card."
"The bill allows for statewide newspaper publication of the
names and address of each person who registers."
"In addition, it increases the penalties for failure to
register as a sex offender in Alaska. Failure to Register
in the First Degree, which is a Class C felony, will be
charged against those who have previously been convicted of
Failure to Register. Or if they have intentionally failed
to register in order to escape detection and
identification."
"In House Finance, the bill was amended to reduce the
minimum sentence for a person convicted of Failure to
Register in the second degree from 90 days to 35 days. This
reduction in sentence is designed to reduce the fiscal note.
Last year 127 sex offenders were prosecuted for failure to
register as a sex offender."
This concluded the sponsor statement. Senator Torgerson
expressed his intent at amending the bill to require sex
offenders register at the time of conviction. His reason
for this was because of constituent requests desiring the
convictions be made public so that other victims may choose
to come forward. He said he was waiting for legal advice
from the Legislative attorneys as to the constitutionality
of such a requirement. He didn't want to hold up progress
on the bill and said he would offer the amendment on the
Senate Floor or in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Representative JOE RYAN arrived at this time. He commented
to Senator Torgerson's idea as follows:
"We originally in the original iteration of this bill had
done this because there's five documents I think that you
get out of court if you're conviction and three of them tell
you definitely that you have to register and registration
hasn't been forthcoming somehow. So we originally put that
in. Then working with the Court System, the AG's office and
so forth, it got watered down to where the Corrections would
do it for the simple reason: if the person's convicted and
they take the registration and photograph, and then they
serve a ten or fifteen-year sentence and then they come back
out, you've got this old photograph, which makes it
difficult later on to identify them because they've changed
over this period of time. And Corrections doing this
shortly before release gives a current photograph for the
database that Public Safety's got up now."
"Before - since the introduction of this bill, Public
Safety's put an Internet database out. Previous to that
time, you had to go down and pay a quarter a page and it was
cumbersome and expensive to get the information. Now you
can pop up on the Internet, see everybody that's there,
their photograph and conviction record and get information
from sources other than the person."
"And so that was the change from having it done upon
conviction to having it just previous to release because
they wanted - Public Safety and everybody wanted a current
photograph of the individual so that it'd be more
recognizable in the community."
"I - if you would like to have a voice, I mean - it a..."
Senator Torgerson interjected that he did not think the
issue of current photographs was a valid reason for not
requiring registration at the time of conviction. He
suggested using photographs taken at the time of arrest.
Representative Ryan said that would affect the fiscal note
and raise the cost of the program.
The committee took a five-minute recess at 4:00 p.m.
Senator Torgerson said he talked to the sponsor and the
department and was told they had no objection to his
proposed amendment. The department was to check on the
fiscal note impact, but he expected only a slight increase.
He stated he would offer the amendment either in Senate
Rules Committee or on the Senate Floor because he did not
want the bill to be held up in this committee.
With that, Senator Torgerson offered a motion to move CS HB
252 (FIN) from committee with accompanying fiscal notes.
There was no objection and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered.
Co-Chair Sharp announced that HB 359 would not be heard at
this meeting but would be taken up at the next day's
meeting.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 405(FIN)
"An Act relating to failing to stop a vehicle when
directed to do so by a peace officer."
JAMES HORNADAY from the bill sponsor, Representative Pete
Kott's office spoke to the bill as follows:
"HB 405 increased the penalties for not stopping at the
direction of a police officer. Failure To Stop At The
Direction Of A Police Officer in the first degree occurs if,
during the commission of the offense, the person violates
any other law and is a Class C felony. Failure To Stop At
The Direction Of A Peace Officer in the second degree occurs
if the person knowingly fails to stop as soon as possible in
a safe manner and is a Class A misdemeanor."
"The crime of alluding a police officer is inherently
dangerous for pedestrians, other drivers and innocent
bystanders. Just as an example, in the Municipality of
Anchorage in August of 1997, a passenger in a vehicle
attempting to avoid arrest was killed when the vehicle ran a
red light and struck a building. This is only one of
several incidents where casualties have resulted from this
very serious crime."
"Increasing the penalties for this crime will not only help
deter this potentially dangerous behavior, but will more
correctly align the severity of the punishment with the
severity of the crime itself."
"This bill is a legislative priority in the Anchorage
Legislative program. It has strong support from the police
departments in Fairbanks and Anchorage and throughout the
state and from police associations as well as the Department
of Public Safety."
"The changes that were made in House Finance, which bill was
referred to Senate Judiciary and was waived out of Senate
Judiciary are found on page one, lines nine and ten. Crime
is defined with the meaning given in AS 11.81.900, which
means it is either a felony or a misdemeanor. Traffic laws
defined in AS 28.15.261, which basically refers to moving
violations. And also on page two, line 14, "knowingly" is
given the same definition as it is given in AS 11.81.900,
which means that that is basically reasonably knew or should
have known. That's a kind of abbreviation of it."
"There is a feeling that the fiscal notes may be
exaggerated. The - Representative Porter was actively in
support of the bill in House Judiciary as former police
chief of the Anchorage Municipality, felt that the idea of
the grapevine if it got out that it was going to be a felony
would be effective."
"Chief Udland was going to be on the L.I.O. I'm not sure if
he made it. We did have him this morning but I don't know
if he's still there."
At this point, CHIEF DUANE UDLAND of the Anchorage Police
Department spoke up that he was connected to the meeting.
Co-Chair Sharp asked him to give his testimony. Chief
Udland commented as follows:
"Thank you for hearing this bill. Mr. Hornaday, I think
summarized the bill quite well. I would maybe just add that
in addition to what Mr. Hornaday said is that, you know two
years ago the Legislature increased the penalty for what we
call drive by shootings that was a misdemeanor. Shot out of
your car and if you didn't hurt anybody that would be a
misdemeanor. Increased that to a felony, I think that was
appropriate. Four years ago you changed a law from what we
used to call joy riding only class A misdemeanor. You
increased it to a felony and I think that was appropriate."
"And I think it's time to look at this issue. I think the
fact that somebody when they flee from a police officer, we
know that 99 times out of a hundred, once they make that
decision, will do whatever it takes to allude that officer.
And we think that is extremely dangerous behavior. In fact
the active pursuits itself very dangerous. The police
department and many police departments around the country,
we have severely restricted our officer's ability to chase.
And we've applied the same standards of review that we would
the use of deadly force."
"So I would hope that this passes out of this committee and
get it on the floor and vote for it. We think it's very
important. I think it's also, once the word got out I think
people that tend to just sort of off the top decide "well
there's not a lot of consequence to if I lose the cops." I
think this would change that notion."
"Thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions."
Senator Parnell asked what other crimes were in the category
of Class C felonies. Were there any sexual assaults or
robberies that were Class C felonies, he wondered. Chief
Udland replied that there were.
Senator Parnell talked about attitude adjustment when a
police officer stopped a vehicle. He wanted to know how the
police department planned to use this charge. Would it be
for an attitude adjustment or used sparingly, he asked.
Chief Udland pointed out that under the bill, there were two
types of charges. One was for individuals who simply
refused to stop and would be considered a Class A
misdemeanor. He reasoned that this would be applied to
people who, for some religious or constitutionality reasons,
felt they should not be required to submit to the police
officers command to stop. The more serious charge would
apply to drivers who committed other violations during their
evasion such as running stoplights, traveling at high
speeds, etc. In these cases, it would be charged as a
felony. However, he didn't think the more severe charge
would be used just for an attitude adjustment. Senator
Parnell commented that the charge was a good tool the police
could use when a person broke other laws.
Senator Parnell asked if currently there was a charge for
refusing to stop for a police officer. Chief Udland said
there was the current Class A misdemeanor, but there was
nothing for the more serious incidents. The intent was to
impose a penalty for the commission of the very dangerous
offence.
Senator Pearce voiced some concern about the large fiscal
notes and the potential costs to the trial courts,
Department of Corrections and the Public Defender Agency.
There was some question about the value of using the charges
as a tool to deal with serious offences versus the high cost
of implementation. She wanted to know if the police and
prosecutors planned to use that charge often under the new
law. Chief Udland didn't think there would be many trials.
He thought prosecutors would choose the misdemeanor charge
in most cases. He referred the threatened raised in cases
of auto theft when that law was rise to a felony. Actually,
there was a decrease.
Co-Chair Sharp thought it was appalling that the Public
Defender Agency was claiming it would need three and one-
half times the amount of funding as the Department of Law
said they would need. He planned to modify the amount.
Senator Donley argued that the higher penalty could be a
very effective tool for the prosecutors to use. Therefore,
he wanted to see the bill passed, but was willing to reduce
the fiscal notes to do so. He did comment that he thought
the fiscal notes were drafted in good faith by all but the
PDA since the costs to implement the program were unknown.
There was further discussion between the members as to how
they should proceed with Senator Pearce offering the issue
could be worked out in conference committee.
Senator Donley made a motion to substitute Finance Committee
zero fiscal notes for the Courts, Public Defenders Agency
and the Department of Corrections. Senator Adams objected
noting the increased workload the legislation would cause.
The agencies felt a responsibility to implement the law but
needed the money to do that, he stressed. He suggested the
funding could be looked at in the conference committee.
Co-Chair Sharp requested a roll call. The motion to reduce
the three fiscal notes to zero was adopted by a vote of 4-1-
2. Senator Adams voted nay and Senators Phillips and
Torgerson were absent.
Mr. Richards from the DOC returned to the table to comment
on the bill.
Tape #165 Side B, 4:20 p.m.
Mr. Richards spoke as follows:
"...I guess the only think I can add at this point is that I
am disappointed at the Department of Correction's fiscal
note identifies the possibility of five felonies and five
misdemeanors under this proposed legislation. In the past
three years we have seen an increase in the number of people
held in the DOC for fleeing or alluding police officers.
And it seems a reasonable estimate that five people out 330
possible charges would get prosecuted and convicted of a
felony. And I believe that most of these - and we've only
shown that half of them would be felonies. It's hard to
believe that anybody who was fleeing an officer would not be
charged with the felony since they would probably be
violating another traffic law or committing another crime.
They'd probably be speeding, running red lights."
"I think they're probably very few consititutionalatists as
were mentioned earlier that are gonna - I don't think they
run into those every day. And so I guess I just wanted to
let this committee know that I believe the fiscal note was
put together in good faith and was accurate and I hope that
they'll take that into consideration at the conference
committee level."
Senator Parnell wanted to know why the drivers ran from the
police. Were they running because they had warrants out for
their arrest or other reasons they would be arrested if they
were caught? Mr. Richards referred to television shows and
listed numerous reasons, such as other traffic tickets
pending and drug and alcohol impairment. Because of those
reasons, he didn't feel that the punishment would be a
complete deterrent, since those individuals had impaired
judgement.
Senator Donley offered a motion to move from committee, CS
HB 405 (FIN) with amended fiscal notes. Without objection,
Co-Chair Sharp so ordered.
HOUSE BILL NO. 242
"An Act relating to unpaid, underpaid, and overpaid
royalty and net profit share payments due on leases of
state land and to the collection and payment of
interest on those payments."
Co-Chair Sharp invited the bill sponsor, Representative Mark
Hodgins, to join the committee. Representative Hodgins
testified as follows:
"...Chair of the Oil and Gas. I thought I would give you a
quick explanation of this and then let you go."
"HB 242 is designed to increase the efficiency of how the
Department of Natural Resources operated by amending the
interest statutes as it pertains to oil and gas royalties.
The intent of this change is to reduce the administrative
workload and the cost of administering minor oil and gas
royalty adjustments."
"Research has been done to show that the cost of processing
and adjustment averages $75 per transaction. Add to that
the application of oil interest and the transaction cost can
be as high as $150."
"Processing an interest transaction of a lesser value than
the out of pocket cost is not in the State's best interest.
The interest earned on an under or overpayment of $16,000 is
approximately $150, which basically equals a wash with our
administrative costs."
"This is a housekeeping and will tend to save the state time
and money. With that I would be open for questions and ask
you to pass HB 242 out of committee."
Senator Pearce wanted to hear from the Department. CAROL
CARROLE, Director of Support Services for the Department of
Natural Resources stated that the department supported the
bill.
Senator Donley offered a motion to move HB 242 from
committee with accompanying fiscal notes. There was no
objections and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered.
Co-Chair Sharp made an announcement for the next day's
meeting. The committee would begin with HB 369.
The committee took a short recess to determine the start
time for the next meeting. Co-Chair Sharp then stated he
would announce the time during the Senate Floor session.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Sharp adjourned the meeting at approximately
4:30 p.m.
SFC-98 (15) 5/09/98 pm
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|