HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE February 8, 1994 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman Representative Con Bunde Representative John Davies Representative Cynthia Toohey Representative Ed Willis Representative Jerry Sanders, Vice Chair Representative Bill Williams OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Representative Carl Moses MEMBERS ABSENT none COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 259: "An Act relating to general grant land entitlements for certain boroughs and unified municipalities; and providing for an effective date." PASSED FROM COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION *HB 393: "An Act relating to unincorporated community capital project matching grant program; and providing for an effective date." HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 204 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4451 Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 393 and Chairman of the House Rules Committee which sponsored HB 259 GLEN VERNON, Borough Manager Lake and Peninsula Borough P.O. Box 495 King Salmon, AK 99613 Phone: 246-3421 Position Statement: Supported HB 259 and HB 393 RON SWANSON, Director Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, AK 99510-7001 Phone: 762-2692 Position Statement: Supported HB 259 JACK FARGNOLI, Senior Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget Office of the Governor Box 110020 Juneau, AK 99811-0020 Phone: 465-3568 Position Statement: Commented on HB 393 LAMAR COTTEN, Lobbyist Lake and Peninsula Borough P.O. Box 103733 Anchorage, AK 99801 Phone: 258-7143 Position Statement: Supported HB 259 and HB 393 KAREN BRAND, Staff Representative Carl Moses State Capitol, Room 204 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4451 Position Statement: Staff to Prime Sponsor of HB 393 and Chairman of the House Rules Committee which sponsored HB 259 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 259 SHORT TITLE: GENERAL GRANT LAND ENTITLEMENT SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/26/93 796 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/26/93 796 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE 04/20/93 (H) CRA AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 124 02/08/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 393 SHORT TITLE: UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY CAP PROJECT GRANT SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/21/94 2125 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/21/94 2125 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 02/08/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-6, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. He noted for the record Representatives Willis, Davies, Williams, Toohey and Sanders were present and noted a quorum was present. Number 024 HB 259 - GENERAL GRANT LAND ENTITLEMENT REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, CHAIRMAN OF THE RULES COMMITTEE, SPONSOR OF HB 259 said, "House bill 259 amends AS 29.65.010, the land entitlement section, to statutorily authorize 187,000 acres for the Lake and Peninsula Borough, and gives the Borough until October 1, 1996 to select those lands. This figure represents approximately three percent of the total state lands located within the Borough. By formula in statute, the Lake and Pen Borough would receive approximately 30,000 acres. Because the Lake and Pen Borough is attempting to promote economic development, become less dependent on the price of fish, and because the value of an acre of land in urban Alaska is much greater than an acre in southwest Alaska, the borough planning commission felt that an entitlement of 187,000 acres was more equitable than 30,000. The borough assembly and planning commission are developing a comprehensive borough plan, and have identified lands of interest to them. AS 29.65 currently provides a land selection process for newly formed boroughs. Within the boundaries of the Lake and Peninsula Borough, there is very little land available from Vacant, Unappropriated, and Unreserved inventories. Because other state lands would need reclassification before issuance to the borough, pursuing entitlements through the formula in AS 29.65.030 would be a more time consuming process. Because the land selection process would be very time consuming, House Bill 259 would raise the priority for processing grant land entitlements for the Lake and Peninsula Borough by simply adding their entitlement to the list of municipalities and boroughs currently in AS 29.65.010(a). HB 259 is a noncontroversial bill, and does not affect other boroughs or their grant allocations. I would ask that the Community and Regional Affairs Committee favorably consider the bill." Representative Bunde joined the committee at 1:09 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked, "Would the Lake and Pen Borough be entitled to this much land without this, but it would just take longer? Is that the point here? REPRESENTATIVE MOSES replied, "Without this statute, they would only be entitled to 30,000 acres." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES continued, "So it's more than just a timing issue, they want to speed the process up?" REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said yes. GLEN VERNON, BOROUGH MANAGER, LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH, via teleconference, said, "...fish tax being the only real tax base that we have and what's needed is this land in order to diversify and bolster the tax base and support the activities in the borough. The process of selecting the acreage in this bill is a detailed one. The planning commission and the borough assembly have gone through and identified, parcel by parcel, the lands that they feel would be appropriate for the borough to select and the total number of acres in the bill reflects that process. Simply adding up the parcels they feel are essential to the borough. The total state lands involved here represent only three percent approximately, of the state lands within the borough, even though many of those lands are presently not classified." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Could you give us an overview of the resource values that you selected for when you were looking for this land?" MR. VERNON said, "The borough would only be able to gain surface estate on any selected lands, so the resource values that we're dealing with would be only those resource values that relate to surface use. Primarily, we had a number of selections that relate to the tourism, visitor, hunting, fishing, recreational industry that's in the borough. The resource value would come primarily from the location of the lands relative to the visitor industry." REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked, "You talked about a tax base, what type of tax base are you talking about?" MR. VERNON said, "The only real revenue base or tax base that the borough presently has, is a tax that imposes on the sale of raw fish. We have imposed a permit fee requirement on lodges and guides that are involved in the recreation industry, however, it's very minimal. We are looking at the possibility...a room tax or bed tax type of arrangement. That would help to diversify." REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked, "Have you done any poling of the people that are going to be made part of this whole in the neighborhoods at all?" MR. VERNON replied, "We've had public hearings and meetings throughout the communities. We have 17 communities throughout the borough, and public hearings have been held in all of those communities." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if it was only "positive feedback." MR. VERNON said, "We've had generally positive feedback throughout the borough from individuals living within the borough. We have had concerns expressed, not about the lands to be selected, but about the potential bed tax or sales tax that the borough might impose if we're successful in moving in the direction we'd like to." Number 268 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked what Mayor Alsworth's position was on HB 259. MR. VERNON said, "Mayor Alsworth was indeed a part of the selection of going through and identifying the parcels; however, he did indicate the potential conflict and that was discussed and I think, full disclosure has been made of the interest that he has there." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "The question was not to question Glen's integrity, I was just wondering if he was in favor of the bill or not." MR. VERNON said, "He favors the bill." CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Where did the 34,000 acre figure come from and where did the 187,000 acre figure come from?" MR. VERNON said, "The approximately 30,000 comes from the formula in the statute. The alternative that we would like to pursue is the one that sets forth 187...189,000 acres that is in the proposed bill, and that total comes from simply going through the borough selecting those lands we feel the borough should administer. So the figure is tied to specific parcels." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Would it be fair to characterize this as a wish list to some extent? Or was there some kind of competitive process that brought the list down to 187,000?" MR. VERNON said, "Yes there was a much larger number of parcels that were initially selected. The parcels that were finally settled upon actually resulted from two different meetings where paring down took place. Yes, I think it does still, to some extent, represent a wish list. We recognize that we may not be able to select everything that we've identified. We would still like to have the acreage identified in the bill and then go through the process with DNR (Department of Natural Resources) and other agencies as to which lands can be reclassified and be openly selected." Number 337 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Have you communicated with the other boroughs? Are you stepping on anybody toes?" MR. VERNON said, "We believe that we're not stepping on anyone's toes. I'm not aware of any other boroughs that object to this. Indeed, there may be other boroughs who would like to follow this same procedure." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The 34,000 acres comes from a formula that's based on the physical size of the borough?" RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, said, "The formula that is used for figuring peninsula entitlement, that's both cities and boroughs, is based on 10 percent of the vacant, unappropriated, unreserved state land within the borough's or city's boundaries. So what we do is, we go through, we figure out how many acres of state land is within a given municipality and how many has a proper classification. The VUU (Vacant Unappropriate Unreserved) formula does not take into consideration, the unique or special circumstances of each municipality. For example, the Municipality of Anchorage has very little state land within its boundaries, but has a tremendous demand. Other cases, such as Lake and Pen, there's a substantial amount of state land there but because of the classification, not much is made available. We have not yet certified Lake and Pen's entitlement, we're not allowed to do that by law until after January 1st of this year and we're given two years to do it, but we do estimate we'll come up with about 29,000 acres." CHAIRMAN OLBERG reiterated, "How do we get from 34,000 to 187,000?" MR. SWANSON said, "That's exactly what this bill does. This municipality, like every other municipality kind of goes through it and looks at land that they think is appropriate for municipal ownership, and identifies it and flat argues for acreage. In this particular case, I certainly support conveying land to a municipality and I do think that 29,000 acres is low for a borough of that particular size, but if 187,000 is the right figure, that's a policy call for you to make." Number 393 CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "If we stipulate 187,000 acres in this legislation, is that an entitlement chiseled in stone that they will receive 187,000 acres or is that a maximum that they can receive?" MR. SWANSON said, "That is a maximum, but every municipality I've seen certainly achieves their maximum." CHAIRMAN OLBERG continued, "These figures are subject to legislative as well as formula computation." MR. SWANSON said, "The statutes now require the formula of computation which we will do in due time. But all boroughs, basically, at least the older ones, have come to the legislature and have established entitlement with them that reflects various formulas that they think meet their needs." Number 411 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I would like to ask about the process that the Lake and Pen Borough would go through in selecting and specifically, I would like to know if essentially the same criteria would be applied to the state's interest in these lands as would apply elsewhere in the state." MR. SWANSON said, "Through this bill process through the legislature, I think it's very useful if the legislature gives us a type order of what kind of land they think is appropriate to convey to any given municipality. Even if that does not happen, we would go through what we call a best interest finding and see if the best interest of the state to convey any given parcel to a local government." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if DNR has taken an official position on HB 259. MR. SWANSON said, "The department supports in concept an increased entitlement. We have not had a chance to review the selections to see if they're appropriate. I think it's appropriate for the borough to, and Mr. Vernon has done that, identify the types of land that they're selecting." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE continued, "This bill allows a maximum selection but it doesn't aberrate the state selection process where the borough has to make it's best case and the state may or may not agree with them on that." MR. SWANSON said, "I agree, what you're saying is the Department of Natural Resources should convey up to 187,000 acres of state land to the municipality. The municipality would then make their selection, we would go through (indiscernible) to see if it's appropriate for that parcel or parcels to go to borough ownership." Number 457 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Is there any Native land in there?" MR. SWANSON said, "There, of course, is Native land within the borough, but none of that is considered, only state land." CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Does unencumbered mean not subject to mental health trust land's complications?" MR. SWANSON confirmed, "That is correct." Number 463 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "You had said that the department hasn't yet had a chance to evaluate whether they thought that this was a reasonable selection or amount. Do you have any sense of what the time frame for that would be?" MR. SWANSON said, "It's difficult to answer because I don't know what form the borough has their information in. Once it's given to me, I would try to give it real prompt review to help you in your deliberating process. I can't tell you whether it's days or weeks without seeing what they've got." Number 476 MR. VERNON responded, "We do have the land selected in the form that it could be submitted immediately to the division. We'd be happy to do that." MR. SWANSON said, "If Mr. Vernon can supply it immediately, I will also review it immediately." Number 485 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I would appreciate that; if we could have the lands that the borough has selected, the maps be transmitted to DNR and have DNR respond to us on their observations on those particular selections." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I'm reassured with the idea that you go through the normal land selection process and so I don't expect DNR to give away the farm and I don't feel particularly qualified to decide whether 187,000 or 180,000 or 190,000 acres is the appropriate amount of land." Number 497 CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "It's obvious in looking at the other boroughs that there is no formula. You can base it on a lot of things. So what we're talking about is whether or not we should allow the Lake and Peninsula Borough to select no more than 187,000 acres with the concurrence of the Department of Natural Resources." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I agree with that. Mr. Swanson had indicated that he thought it might be helpful if the committee would consider whether or not there should be any kind of committee guidance on the resource values to be selected for in the lands, and I don't think there's any way we could know whether or not there are any issues there that we should be concerned about or not unless we have some other people look at the range of lands that are being considered." CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Is that a fair assessment of your remarks?" MR. SWANSON replied yes. CHAIRMAN OLBERG questioned, "Natural Resources would like to look at the selections prior to this legislation passing?" MR. SWANSON said, "That's the recommendation we're making to you, of course it's your call to make but we can give you a lot better assessment in a week. I think it's in the state's best interest to convey the types of land of a particular parcel the borough has identified." Number 520 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "It's going to the Resources Committee next. How about if Mr. Swanson's concerns (are addressed there)?" MR. SWANSON said, "I would be more than happy to provide that information to the Resources Committee." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "To me, it's more a matter of curiosity than concern. I'm not concerned about DNR giving away the farm or Lake and Peninsula Borough running off with our acres." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY agreed. Number 537 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "There are some state interest, we have some fiduciary responsibility." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The legislature will not make the determination of which lands are selected and which lands are not. We will make the determination of what the maximum numbers of acres can be, according to this legislation. On the other side of the coin, the state seems very slow to get land into private ownership and maybe this is a way to advance this process." Number 545 REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said, "DNR is still going to protect the state as to what the borough can select, so I think you're covered on that basis. What's more important here is the state is starving with our budget crisis and whatnot for economic development and this is a step in the right direction to create economic development." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I don't have any disagreement with any of that. I think that's all fine, I just think we have a certain responsibility to look over DNR's shoulders as the process goes along and make sure it's all in the state's best interest." Number 554 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "It seems like a reasonable compromise, moving it from here on to resources with those people at the DNR having a chance to provide more information there (in the House Resources Committee)." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY added, "That's DNR's job and they're much more qualified than we are." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Who are we to quibble with the Chairman of Resources about this matter. He wants it, he gets it." Number 560 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY moved that HB 259 be moved from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections. HB 393 - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY CAP PROJECT GRAN CHAIRMAN OLBERG brought forth HB 393. Number 581 REPRESENTATIVE MOSES, SPONSOR, testified, "HB 393 relates to the unincorporated community capital matching grant program. HB 393 amends AS 37.06.020, the eligibility requirements to participate in the unincorporated community capital matching grants program. Currently, only unincorporated communities outside of organized boroughs can participate directly in the program. Unincorporated communities within boroughs do not participate directly, and only receive a portion of the borough's allocation of the municipal capital matching grants program, if the borough sees fit. HB 393 will level the playing field for all unincorporated communities by allowing those outside of boroughs, and those inside of boroughs where 25 or more residents permanently reside, and where there is no roadway connection to other communities, to participate in the program currently administered from the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. The bill will take effect July 1, 1994. When the language to develop the Capital Matching Grants Programs was drafted, there was an oversight in recognizing that the Lake and Peninsula Borough, for instance, has 13 unincorporated communities that must share the pool of Municipal grant monies that the borough receives. I would appreciate prompt consideration for HB 393, so that the 24 unincorporated communities that will be made eligible to participate in the program can do so in FY '95. This tries to straighten out an inequity. What happens now, you penalize communities for becoming organized in a borough. JACK FARGNOLI, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR stated, "Our position on the legislation is that we have no objection to this. We have discussed this with Lake and Peninsula Borough. While we don't have exactly the same view on whether or not it's unfair, we do understand where it's constituents are coming from insofar as whenever you draw a line someone's on one side of the line and someone's on the other side of the line. We do have one concern about it. Our point of view is that, as the legislation has been proposed, in its current form, it sets up two dynamics which are at odds with each other. One of which is the constitutional mandate that boroughs have the responsibility for planning their capital projects within their borough districts and the associated constitutional mandate to provide for the greatest level government with the fewest number of elements of local government. We feel that new unincorporated communities that are located within the boroughs grantees, would be at odds with that mandate. So we feel it would improve the legislation and be more in keeping with constitutional mandates, if the boroughs involved were required to have some approval over the capital projects that are being proposed by the new eligibles, if you will. This would allow the kind of coordination of capital project planning and development within boroughs which is the responsibility under the constitution of the boroughs." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "We'd like to encourage unorganized areas of the state to organize and take more local responsibility. Do you view that without this bill there's an impediment to organizing?" MR. FARGNOLI said, "Would a change in the legislation be enough to change a community's mind is the question really as it would be valuated by a community. There are lots of pluses and minuses in incorporating or staying unincorporated. In general, we don't feel it would be a large determinant in that decision. If this were a 300 million dollar program, whatever incentives were there or disincentives, would be proportionately larger. Certainly, at this current level, we don't think it would be a determining factor." Number 680 CHAIRMAN OLBERG clarified, "An organized city within a borough is already excluded and receives separate funding under this. On one level you can consider it as giving unincorporated cities and incorporated cities within the borough equal footing on a funding standpoint. The population of each of which is excluded from the grant for the borough itself." MR. FARGNOLI confirmed this, "Under Representative Moses' legislation, the proper populations are backed out so that there's no double counting of the populations." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Borough oversight is a wonderful thing up to a point, but the moment you said that, `skimming' raced through my mind." MR. FARGNOLI said, "There are limitations in the existing law that would limit the administrative costs that can be taken by any pass through entity." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked for a response from Representative Moses and Mr. Vernon on borough oversight. REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said, "I certainly don't have any problem with it, in fact I welcome it. There was no intent to circumvent the borough government. We welcome an amendment to take care of that." TAPE 94-6, SIDE B Number 000 MR. VERNON said, "Even under the present program the borough has taken the money that it's entitled to, which is a relatively small amount, a little over $39,000 to spread among 12 unincorporated communities, which gives each of them around $3300 as I recall. In any event, we would concur with the idea of the borough becoming a coordinator. In fact, with regard to the small amount of money which we have received under the fiscal '94 provision, that's exactly what we're doing." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "How many such unincorporated communities are affected by this legislation in Lake and Pen and then statewide?" MR. FARGNOLI said, "We have a rough estimate so far from the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. We're looking at about 23 or 24 communities, approximately 10 of which are within Lake and Pen." Number 047 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I would be interested in a little bit of sensitivity analysis to the number 25. How would those numbers change if we changed the limiting number of 25 persons." Number 055 MR. FARGNOLI said, "We had initially started out looking when we were exploring this topic with Lake and Peninsula Borough folks, of a potential population of about 78 eligibles and that was on a rather inclusive 25 people or more living as a coherent social unit and that list of criteria that are in the proposed legislation, the one that brought that down to 24, would be whether they're roadless or not." Number 076 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked, "How many communities are currently participating in this?" MR. FARGNOLI replied, "Right now, we have about 67 in the '94 version of the program in the unincorporated community side and I think that becomes 68 in fiscal '95. So it would be 24 added to that." REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS continued, "If there's no fiscal note, that means you're just going to divide the pot out among more communities?" MR. FARGNOLI said, "The Department of Administration won't be affected by this. They would get adjusted population numbers and that would be the only difference they would see programatically. The DCRA feels... that the additional grant administration load that would come with 24 new eligible grantees could be done within their existing staffing. As far as the funding, that's a question that would be before the legislature as a whole and the governor. The question really would begin at what's the overall funding targets set by the governor and proposed and appropriated by the legislature for the municipal and the unincorporated programs. Would they look at those as one pot of money to be split two ways or two separate pots. Another option is to take money from the municipal side and move $600,000 over or add $600,000 to the unincorporated or keep the unincorporated at it's current and let everyone's allocation drop." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked why there is a reference to the previous fiscal year in HB 393. MR. FARGNOLI said, "I think the emphasis on the previous fiscal year is that in the other parts of the existing statute, the eligibility...is driven by their standing as of the previous fiscal year." Number 222 LAMAR COTTEN, LOBBYIST FOR LAKE PENINSULA BOROUGH, testified in support of HB 393, saying, "Lake and Pen is like many other boroughs in rural Alaska where they work directly and are a chief source of funding for capital projects. It's not out of the ordinary for them to participate or provide oversight as it stands now for such projects. Typically, a lot of those projects relate back to the services that the borough, either directly or indirectly, provide. So I think the intent of oversight by the borough is compatible with how Lake and Pen and Aleutians East and other rural boroughs have operated. The constitution talks about limited number of governments in rural Alaska...I think it's unfair to some small communities that have reviewed the issue of incorporating but...shouldn't be forced into it simply to receive funds such as this program. So instead of adding another level of government...the basic function of government is being provided by one entity and simply adding another hat to a small group of people sometimes, I don't think really serves a greater purpose of providing services. With respect to the issue of population, I think the way this is written is good. All boroughs or communities are, for some reason or another, forced to go through this process of identifying who actually does live in a community for various grants. So I think they do update their population base every twelve months." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES cautioned that the language regarding population data is vague in HB 393 and suggested that it specify that DCRA should arbitrate the population of communities. MR. COTTEN agreed and said, "They currently are the ones that review and sign off on the populations for the other programs." Number 294 KAREN BRAND, STAFF FOR REPRESENTATIVE MOSES, stated "The reason we put that qualifier in there is that without it, we were coming up with several definitions of communities that would now qualify. There were groups of residents, 25 or more, that would qualify as being a separate community and that was not the intent." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "But my little bity communities in organized boroughs are on the road system. Where does that leave them?" MS. BRAND said, "That's the other side of the hat. We had to come up with a qualifier and after many deliberations with the legal drafter of trying to pare down, it hurt some of our communities also, it omitted them." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reminded the committee, "There was some discussion of an amendment... that would keep the borough in the loop." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "My staff and Representative Moses' staff and the department may draft something in the way of a committee substitute." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I was wondering if there might be a qualifier that depended on distance along the road." There was some discussion about possible qualifying language. CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think this one needs a little reflection and work," and announced adjournment at 2:11 p.m.