Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/29/1998 03:50 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
April 29, 1998
3:50 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bert Sharp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 252
"An Act relating to paternity establishment and child support;
relating to the crimes of criminal nonsupport and aiding the
nonpayment of child support; and amending Rule 37(b)(2)(D), Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 252(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 144(FIN)
"An Act relating to the authority of the Department of
Environmental Conservation to charge fees; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED SCS CSHB 144(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 340
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land,
and authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state
land."
- MOVED CSSB 340(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 342
"An Act approving the sale of Prudhoe Bay Unit royalty oil by the
State of Alaska to Mapco Alaska Petroleum, Inc.; and providing for
an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 73
"An Act extending the termination dates of the salmon marketing
programs of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the salmon
marketing assessment; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 252 - See HESS minutes dated 3/2/98, 3/4/98 & 3/20/98 and
Resources Committee minutes dated 4/22/98 & 4/27/98.
HB 144 - No previous action to record.
SB 340 - No previous action to record.
SB 342 - No previous action to record.
HB 73 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 2/24/98 and 3/3/98.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Juli Lucky, Staff to Senator Halford
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined changes in CSSB 252(RES)
Ms. Barbara Miklos, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 310
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on CSSB 252(RES)
Dan Branch, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on CSSB 252(RES)
Ms. Barbara Cotting, Committee Aide
House State Affairs Committee
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSHB 144(FIN)
Mike Tibbles, Staff to Representative Gene Therriault
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented overview on CSHB 144(FIN)
Jerry Reinwand
2 Marine Way, #219
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined concerns with CSHB 144(FIN)
Ms. Janice Adair, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on CSHB 144(FIN)
Richard Harris, Senior Vice President
Sealaska Corporation
One Sealaska Plaza
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of amendments to
CSHB 144(FIN)
Ralph Bennett, Staff to Senator Taylor
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented overview on SB 340
Ms. Wendy Redman, Vice President
Statewide Programs & Services
P.O. Box 755000
Fairbanks, AK 99775
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested changes to SB 340
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-36, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 252 - PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT CRIMES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:50 p.m. He brought SB 252 before the committee as the
first order of business.
JULI LUCKY, staff to Senator Halford, directed attention to a new
draft CSSB 252(RES), version "H," and two amendments to that work
draft. Ms. Lucky then outlined the following changes between the
new draft and the work draft (version "F") adopted at a previous
hearing on the bill:
- In Section 2 "recreational licensing" wording adopted at the
previous hearing has been incorporated. This language
differentiates between a recreational hunting or fishing
license and a license required for subsistence or personal
use.
- Sections 3 and 5, which were in the HESS version of SB 252 but
were not in the previous Resources CS, have been incorporated
into version "H."
- Section 4 will disallow sale of a list of social secuirty
numbers collected by the state agency required by this bill.
- Section 6 relates to confidentiality and would require the
Department of Fish and Game at the time that they allow a
vendor to sell licenses to notify them of the consequences if
social security numbers are let out.
- Sections 7 through 10 were in the HESS version of the bill and
require the Department of Fish and Game to provide social
security numbers to CSED upon request.
- Section 11 is a court amendment that requires the court to
provide copies of records for CSED for child support services.
- Section 13 is the mediation amendment that was offered and
adopted at the previous hearing on the bill.
- In Section 22 the reference to first-class mail has been
deleted and it now provides that service will be by certified
mail, return receipt requested, or served personally.
- In Section 24 the amounts the employer would have to pay as a
civil penalty have been changed.
- In Section 25 the language relating to subpoenas has been
reworded for clarity.
Number 145
SENATOR LINCOLN inquired as to the status of an amendment to
Section 12 she had proposed at the previous hearing, which relates
to withholding orders, an would delete the phrase "shall
immediately send" and replace it with "may enforce the order by
sending." She said she thought it was agreeable with the
department to change that language so that it is more permissive.
SENATOR GREEN voiced her concern of a person being notified in a
timely manner if an order has been issued but the language provides
that it "may" be sent. That means that person is left out of a
loop and then could be held liable for nonpayment.
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division,
Department of Revenue, clarified that this is not the section that
requires the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) to send out
withholding orders. This is a special court order that a person
gets directly and they may send it, but it is separate of the
legislation, and it is not used very often.
DAN BRANCH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, said he
thought the word "shall" was put in by the drafters to make sure
that if you wanted to enforce a withholding order that you
accompany it with all of the other documents that are listed. He
said if the amendment is adopted, he doesn't think it is going to
diminish the ability of a non-custodial parent who is not using the
agency to enforce an income withholding order. He said the purpose
of the amendment is to clarify and perhaps alleviate some of the
concern that a newly divorced custodial parent might have that they
are obligated by the statute to take a copy of the divorce order
and send it off to anybody who might have money belonging to the
child support debtor.
MS. LUCKY continued her overview of the changes made in CSSB
252(RES), version "H."
- Sections 26 and 27 relate to a person filing a response when
served with a notice of paternity and financial
responsibility. The deadline has been extended to 30 days for
financial information and for admitting or denying paternity,
and to 45 days to comply with genetic testing.
- Section 52 makes the Act nonseverable.
Number 261
CHAIRMAN HALFORD requested a motion to adopt the new Resources CS.
SENATOR GREEN moved the adoption of CSSB 252(RES), version "H."
Hearing no objection, the motion carried.
SENATOR LINCOLN moved the following amendment to CSSB 252(RES):
Page 9, line 10: Delete the language "shall immediately send" and
replace it with "may enforce the order by sending"
SENATOR TAYLOR objected to the adoption of Senator Lincoln's
amendment. He said if the court was obligated every time to issue
an income withholding order, why should someone be given the
opportunity to sit on it. He added he couldn't see where the
amendment, in any way, benefits that person.
MR. BRANCH stated that the department is neutral on the amendment.
He added that the statutes provide that every child support order
issued in the state shall contain a income withholding order. The
Court System has made provisions in the child support order form to
allow the court to not make the income withholding order immediate
in certain circumstances. He added that the particular subsection
that the amendment addresses is going to be used more by the
custodial parent that chooses not to go through CSED than by the
agency.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called for a hand vote on the adoption of Senator
Lincoln's amendment. By a vote of 1-5, the amendment failed.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that CSSB 252(RES) be passed out of committee
with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
CSHB 144(FIN) - DEC FEES:PESTICIDES AND CHEMICALS
CHAIRMAN HALFORD brought HB 144 before the committee as the next
order of business.
BARBARA COTTING, committee aide, House State Affairs Committee,
stated the legislation resolves a lot of problems that have needed
addressing for a long time. She said the House Finance Committee
has worked extensively on the legislation, and she deferred to
their staff to answer any questions committee members might have.
MIKE TIBBLES, staff to Representative Gene Therriault, said there
was a concern that industry was being charged for items that should
come out of the general fund and are now being included in program
receipts. Initially, they looked at requiring a fixed fee,
however, in looking at the statute, there was confusion about how
the language "and other services provided by the department" should
be interpreted. It was felt it was being interpreted too broadly
and including items that shouldn't be included in the permittee's
cost. That language was removed, but then it started to open up
into other items and excluded certain things they wanted to charge
for. They worked to get it to the point where fees could be
charged for the reasonable functions and have the safety built in
so that there wouldn't be abuses, and, at the same time, have
industry pay for those actual direct costs of the services provided
to them.
Mr. Tibbles presented a section-by-section analysis of CSHB
144(FIN).
Number 475
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that other than for pesticides, it stills
leaves the determination up to the department on what the hourly
fee will be and what the fixed fee will be. MR. TIBBLES
acknowledged that was correct, but he said they were trying to
approach it from the position of what can be charged, trying to
eliminate all indirect costs, therefore forcing the fee down.
SENATOR TAYLOR said by eliminating the indirect costs, the
department will increase their hourly costs in order to recover
the same amount of money. He voiced his position that there should
be more "teeth" put into the bill.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the department currently includes
overhead expenses in their hourly billing. MR. TIBBLES replied
that it was his understanding that they do, however, there is a
statutory prohibition against including travel costs, but that is
included in this legislation.
Number 541
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if it is the department that is allowed to
choose either the fixed fee or the actual direct costs. MR.
TIBBLES replied that the fixed fee would have to based upon the
actual direct cost.
Number 585
JERRY REINWAND, representing the Chemical Specialty Manufacturers
Association, said his client has concern with the uncertainty of
what the charges are going to be and the uncertainty as to what the
definition of the product is going to be.
Mr. Reinwand said there is a dispute between the association and
the department as to how many products would actually be
registered. The department figures there would be about 2,000
products registered, however the association figures it would be up
to 8,800 products registered. He noted some states have as many as
13,000 products registered.
He said there is also a dispute between the association and the
department on the definition of what constitutes a pesticide.
Mr. Reinwand said the association simply has a difference of
opinion with the department, and they have no problem with paying
an appropriate fee. They believe that the fee should be set in
statute and the definitions contained in the proposed Resources SCS
are appropriate.
TAPE 98-36, SIDE B
SENATOR GREEN inquired if this is handled in all states through
the equivalent of a DEC. MR. REINWAND responded that he believes
there are states where the agriculture departments actually run
these types of programs and not the environmental agency.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD questioned what the registration of household
products includes and what registration means. MR. REINWAND
responded that even though his client's recommendation is to try to
define these products, in general, by statute, the department still
has a lot of elbow room to define this by regulation. He wasn't
familiar with the meaning of registration.
Number 550
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, responding to Chairman
Halford's question on the meaning of registration, said
registration, generally speaking, is when the department gets a
copy of a label of a pesticide. The label explains the cautions,
how it can be used, how it shouldn't be used, etc., and this is
kept on file so that they know how it can be used in the state.
The manufacturer is responsible for providing this information to
the department.
Ms. Adair said the department worked with the House Finance
Committee on the legislation, however, they still have problems
with the pesticide section, and it primarily is a disagreement
about how many pesticides there are in use in the state. The
department's registration program just took effect late last year,
so it is just now getting the information on how many pesticides
there are, but based on market surveys done by their pesticide
staff, there is somewhere between two to three thousand of them.
She pointed out there is not much use of restricted use pesticides
in Alaska, and the department does not have a problem with
differentiating between restricted-use pesticides and
nonrestricted-use pesticides.
Ms. Adair showed the committee a label from a product that is
authorized for agricultural and non-agricultural use. However,
with the way the language in the Resources SCS reads, she wasn't
sure what they would call it when it comes to registering it, and
if they would charge the higher fee for registering an
agricultural-use pesticide or lower fee for the household use.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the department prefers the categories
restricted use and non-restricted use versus the three categories
that are in the Resources SCS. MS. ADAIR responded that was
correct, and that is how it came out of the House Finance
Committee.
MS. ADAIR also related that the department was concerned that the
House Finance Committee's fee amount was not sufficient to match
their federal grant. She said the amount of their grant isn't
driving what they are asking for because the cost is less than the
cost that they put into it, but the whole idea behind this bill
when it was originally introduced was to get rid of $55,000 in
general funds and to supplant that with program receipts that came
from chemical manufacturers outside the state.
Number 416
RICHARD HARRIS, a Senior Vice President with Sealaska Corporation,
said the corporation is involved in industrial resource development
activities and, as such, receives a number of permits each year.
He said they recognize that they are going to have to pay their
share, but they do have a substantial problem with the fees that
were passed in previous legislation.
Sealaska has objected to the current structure, and their
experience is that it has created a gold rush mentality for fees
for every possible regulatory action. Sealaska agrees that it
should be the actual direct costs associated with those permits,
but it should not be required to pay overhead costs associated with
the administration of a department.
Mr. Harris said Sealaska believes that the permittee has to have
some protections. He said we have to ensure that the permittee is
not charged for services that have not been received, and that the
permittee is burdened with the indirect costs, which they believe
should remain a function of the state.
Mr. Harris said HB 144 does help some of the deficiencies that
Sealaska has encountered, and they support the amendments before
the committee.
Number 350
There being no further witnesses to testify on HB 144, CHAIRMAN
HALFORD requested a motion on Amendment No. 1.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved adoption of the following amendment:
Amendment No. 1
Page 3, line 15: Following "for" add "the actual direct costs of"
Hearing no objection to the motion, CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated
Amendment No. 1 was adopted.
Number 340
SENATOR LEMAN moved the adoption of the following Amendment No. 2:
Amendment No. 2
Page 1: Following line 3 insert a new bill section to read:
*Section 1. AS 03.05.025 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) Notwithstanding AS 44.46.025, the fee for a seafood
processing permit for a direct-market fishing vessel may not exceed
$100. In this subsection, "direct-market fishing vessel" means a
fishing vessel
(1) that has an overall length of less than 65 feet
and processes the vessel operator's own catch of seafood products
on board the vessel for direct retail sale to consumers; or
(2) of any length if the seafood product that is
harvested by the vessel operator and processed on board the vessel
is tuna."
Page 1, line 4: Delete "Section 1" and insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Number 320
MS. ADAIR stated the department does not support the amendment.
She said the $100 fee, even at the more limited hourly rate that
the department would use to calculate the fixed fee, would not
cover the department's costs associated with these vessels. She
said on many occasions she has expressed the need to go back and
look at the permit categories because industry has changed since
the categories were first developed, and they are not reflective of
the industry any more. She is in the process of putting together
a work group to look at the permit categories and the fees that go
along with them. The effect of the amendment is that it would take
a group of processors that other processors complain about, lower
their fee to a great amount, and then the state general fund would
have to subsidize the activities involved with those types of
processors.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked the current cost charged for the
inspections. MS. ADAIR related that the permit and inspection
together is $400 per year.
SENATOR LINCOLN pointed out that the idea of the amendment was to
get the fees down for the permit and inspection, but the amendment
just speaks to the permit so it is not accomplishing what Senator
Leman had intended.
SENATOR LEMAN moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, to add the
words "and inspection" following the word "permit." He said it was
his intent that this would be the annual cost for these vessels
that would include the permit and any inspections.
MS. ADAIR pointed out if they have an inspection that ends up
finding several deficiencies and necessitates going back and doing
a reinspection, then that operator can just have as many
inspections as he needs. She said that is not how they treat
anyone else, and she wondered why, as a policy, he would want to.
SENATOR LEMAN clarified he wants this to pertain to scheduled
inspections, not for reinspection of violations, and he proposed
doing this as a conceptual amendment to get the wording correctly
crafted.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated the conceptual amendment applies to the
$100 fee to the permit and inspection, and that that be the normal
scheduled inspection. There would some leeway for additional
inspections, if required.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was objection to the conceptual
amendment to Amendment No. 2. SENATOR LINCOLN objected, stating
she did not think the $100 amount was enough. By a show of hands,
the amendment to Amendment No. 2 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated Amendment No. 2, as amended, was before the
committee. He said he personally has a problem with exempting the
tuna boats because they are a lot bigger, and the operators don't
live here.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, as
amended, to delete subsection (2) in the amendment, which is the
reference to tuna vessels. CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that it is
not intended that they fall under the requirements of having a
permit. It deletes them from the $100 exemption, so it may take
a drafting change other than just deleting it from the amendment.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked there was any objection to deleting the
exemption for tuna boats. Hearing no objection, he stated that
amendment to Amendment No. 2, as amended, was adopted.
TAPE 98-37, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated Amendment No 2, as amended, was before the
committee. He added that the conceptual amendment adopted by the
committee would be brought back before the committee to make sure
there was agreement on its wording.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was objection to the adoption of
Amendment No. 2, as amended. SENATORS GREEN and LINCOLN objected.
By a show of hands, the amendment carried on a 3-2 vote.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass SCS HB 144(RES) out of committee with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
SB 340 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
CHAIRMAN HALFORD brought SB 340 before the committee as the next
order of business.
RALPH BENNETT, staff to the Senate Judiciary Committee read the
following sponsor statement into the record:
"The provisions of SB 340 allow the University of Alaska to select
250,000 acres of state land subject to approval by the Legislature.
Land approved for transfer would include interests in minerals and
to oil and gas subject to certain limitations. Also lands subject
to a coal lease or where a lease application is pending are not
available for selection. The University would bear the costs of
selection, platting, surveying and conveyance. All land selections
must be made by December 31, 2012. Twenty percent of income
derived from selected lands must be used at the campus closest to
the income generating parcel(s). All lands conveyed under this
program are exempted from municipal taxation. SB 340 is compatible
with Senator Murkowski's S.660, the legislation, pending in
Congress, that will convey additional public lands to the
University of Alaska.
"The University of Alaska system was created under federal
authority as a land grant institution to provide for the higher
education requirements of Alaska's people in perpetuity. Most
colleges established under the land grant program were endowed with
sizable land bases from which to generate income to be used for
operating purposes. Unlike most institutions in the Lower 48
states, the University of Alaska does not have the relatively
larger population base and proximity to other support services that
are so beneficial. The University of Alaska also suffers from a
smaller pool of alumni and other normal sources of endowment income
which many institutions rely on to help support operations,
especially subsidies for teaching positions.
"In the past decade several legislators have introduced legislation
allowing the University of Alaska to select additional lands from
the State. The purpose of all legislative attempts to provide more
land for the University statewide system has been to provide more
income producing assets where monetary resources are becoming
scarcer and unpredictable. This bill continues the effort to give
the University of Alaska a larger, more productive land base. The
bill also provides clear expectations that land conveyed is to be
used for the development of value added industries where
appropriate."
MR. BENNETT informed the committee that Senator Murkowski's
legislation has been reported out of the last committee of referral
and is headed to the floor for a vote.
MR. BENNETT also presented a section-by-section analysis of SB 340.
He noted there was a proposed committee substitute, which makes a
simple change to Section 5, the section that deals with the new
land selections. The coal industry pointed out that coal leases in
lease applications for coal were not included in the draft, so the
committee substitute would include coal leases and the land for
which a coal lease application is pending that would not be
available to the University for selection.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what happens if the University gets the land
and does nothing with it.
SENATOR TAYLOR said like him he wants to see somebody producing
something on it.
Number 261
SENATOR GREEN referenced page 9, line 22, which is basically the
beginning of a reversionary clause, and she said questioned why
get back into reversionary clauses after spending two years getting
out of one.
MR. BENNETT related that S.660 would grant the University 250,000
acres of federal land, and in order to receive this land, the
University must relinquish 11,852 of valuable inholdings in Alaska.
The University would be eligible to receive an additional 250,000
acres of federal land on a matching basis with the state for a
total of 500,000 additional acres.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD questioned what happens if we don't want them to
give up the only state land owned in those federal enclaves. MR.
BENNETT responded that was a legislative call.
SENATOR TORGERSON said in Section 6, it says the net income goes
into the endowment trust fund, and he asked how the endowment
works.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, University of Alaska, explained that,
by statute, the money goes into a land grant trust fund, and the
earnings of the trust fund are what is extended.
SENATOR GREEN referenced subsection (c) on page 10 and commented
that you can't get to the money, that 20 percent of the income
derived from the management of land selections for use on the
closest campuses because, by law, all the proceeds go into the
University trust fund.
MS. REDMAN stated the University would not support that kind of
amendment for a lot of reasons, primarily because the purpose of
the natural resource fund is to support natural resource programs
in Alaska. She said they try to expend the money where the faculty
and staff exist.
MS. REDMAN said this is the fourth version of this type of
legislation that has been introduced over the years, and it is
probably the cleanest version. However, she said there were a
couple of things that were dropped in subsequent bills, and she had
some amendments for the committee's consideration. There are two
issues that are very important to the University. The first one is
on proprietary information. The University is not covered the same
way that the state is for the protection of proprietary information
for people who wish to do leasing, etc., with them, and they would
like to have that protection written into the bill. The second
issue is tort immunity, and they feel it is important for them to
have some sort of immunity while people are out doing their
customary and traditional things on their land.
Returning to Senator Green's reference to a reversionary clause on
page nine, MS. REDMAN said that unless there was some strong reason
for keeping that section in the bill, she would encourage that it
be removed. She said they believe the University can get those
lands into a productive and appropriate development for the state
of Alaska.
Number 498
SENATOR TAYLOR said he likes the provision in there to either "use
it or lose it." He said he wants the University motivated to
harvest the resources or else it might as well go back to the feds.
MS. REDMAN said she thought the University's history of managing
land is a lot better than DNR's history of managing land.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented the fact is that the University has a
strong constituency for preservation, and, if they are given the
land without some kind of a push, they are probably not going to
generate much money. Generating money takes active management, and
it takes dealing with conflicts, it takes exploration, it takes
access, numerous things that some people in the University's
constituency don't like.
MS. REDMAN said she didn't think he would see that if he would look
at what the University has been doing in the last 10 years since
they have had possession of their lands.
Number 537
SENATOR LEMAN said if the University had a plan in place for use of
the land, he didn't think the reversionary clause would be as much
of a burden as was suggested.
TAPE 98-37, SIDE B
SENATOR LINCOLN moved an amendment to page 2, line 20, to delete
"to the maximum extent practicable" so that it just says that the
University of Alaska shall manage the land in a manner that permits
customary and traditional uses of the resources of that land.
SENATOR TORGERSON proposed as an amendment to the amendment to
delete "manage" and insert "grant the use of" in its place.
SENATOR TAYLOR proposed to delete after the word "shall" the phrase
"manage the land in a manner that permits" and to insert the word
"allow" in its place.
SENATOR GREEN, speaking against the amendment, said on the one
hand we're saying to take this land, develop it and make money, and
on the other hand, we're saying they can't refuse letting anyone
on the property for any reason.
MS. REDMAN suggested that if that section was going to be left in
the bill, she thought the way it was currently worded worked the
best.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated Senator Lincoln's motion to delete "to the
maximum extent practicable" was before the committee. SENATOR
GREEN objected. A hand vote was taken and the amendment failed on
a 1-5 vote.
Number 514
MS. REDMAN requested that the committee consider a conceptual
amendment to subsection (c) on page 10, which provides that 20
percent of the income derived goes to the campus that is located
within the closest proximity. She said it is a very troubling
section to the University, however, she thinks they might be able
to live with it if it were broadened to say "to support resource
development within the region of the campus." SENATOR TAYLOR
voiced his objection to the amendment.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt a confidentiality amendment in the
bill. Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt an immunity amendment to include the
language in AS 09.65.200. Hearing no objection, the amendment was
adopted.
Number 432
SENATOR GREEN stated she was still uncomfortable with the
reversionary clause language. She moved as an amendment to page 9,
beginning on line 22, to delete paragraph (1) in its entirety.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called for a show of hands on Senator Green's
amendment, and by a 1-4 vote, the amendment failed.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated the amendments adopted by the committee
would be incorporated into a Resources CS.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved CSSB 340(RES) be passed out of committee with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|