Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/20/2001 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 82-2001 REVISOR'S BILL
PAM FINLEY, revisor of statutes, said HCR 5 is a "clean up bill"
and suggestions come from bill drafters, the Executive Branch and
the general public. Policy choices and political issues are,
understandably, avoided.
She referred to the State Affairs CS for the bill saying that it
adds Section 21 and 23 to the bill to correct errors found after
Legislative Council had their meeting. Section 23 gives a special
effective date of July 1 because the section that it is amending
doesn't take effect until July 1.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether those were new sections added to
the bill and not problems with the original wording.
MS. FINLEY said that is correct.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that his staff had conducted a lengthy
sectional analysis, checked all the statutory references and found
"nothing hidden." He noted that there was a zero fiscal note
attached.
MS. FINLEY said she was pleased to hear that.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for a motion to adopt the Senate State
Affairs version of the bill.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made the motion to adopt CS SB 82 (STA).
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for amendments to the working document
and there were none.
SENATOR HALFORD asked for an explanation of section 3.
MS. FINLEY said that was the result of a mistake, by a revisor, in
another revisor bill. "There were two bills changing the end of
that spanned reference, (AS 16.05.330-16.05.) 723. I think it was
(AS 16.05.) 700 and there were other ones added so it was changed
to (AS 16.05.) 723 and there were two sections in the revisor's
bill in which that change to the end of the spanned reference was
made. The first section started out (AS 16.05.) 440 and this one
started out (AS 16.05.) 330 and I think what happened is they just
duplicated the change in the second section. There was no intention
to change 440 to 330. I was concerned that that might-because 330
actually will pick up the fishing licensing fees. So I was
concerned that it might actually, even though it was undoing an
error, that it might change something on the ground. I asked George
Utermohle, our fish and game person, to look into that and to talk
to the Department of Fish and Game about it. Everyone now seems.
satisfied that it will not change anything." There is a memo in the
committee packets from Mr. Utermohle about the aquatic farming
triennial license.
SENATOR HALFORD asked about the next to last paragraph in the memo
that reads, "It is my conclusion that an aquatic farming activity
authorized by a permit issued under AS 16.40 is not subject to the
aquatic farming triennial license and that a…" He asked whether "we
are doing what he says."
MS. FINLEY said yes, that in making the change there is no change
in law. What he's saying now is "As the law stands now, an aquatic
farming activity authorized by a permit under 640 is not subject to
the triennial license that is in, I believe it is, 330. By changing
from 440 to 330, we're not changing anything."
SENATOR HALFORD said, "He said it may be useful to amend 930."
MS. FINLEY said that it is a long and complicated issue but she
believes he is saying there was an ambiguity that arose when AS
16.40.100-199 was enacted and it wasn't clear how they interacted.
It is his opinion that the amendment in the revisor's bill doesn't
change anything.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if that's appropriate for a revisor's
bill.
MS. FINLEY said no, she'd rather have the Department of Fish and
Game deal with it.
Number 1580
SENATOR HALFORD said that partial fixes were being made and it came
from a revisor's bill.
MS. FINLEY said it is her intention to fix problems. without
causing other harm. She could ask Fish and Game if they have
suggestions on amending AS 16.05.930(g) but she doesn't want to
change anything that isn't necessary.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was no problem holding the bill.
SENATOR HALFORD commented that this is a situation where "you pull
on a thread…"
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked about the change from 19 to 18 years of age
on page 1 line 9.
Number 544
MS. FINLEY said that when the age of minority was changed from 19
to 18, AS 13.06.050(29) wasn't amended and this takes care of that
oversight. When the uniform probate code definition was enacted,
the age of majority, which was 19, was put in; later the age of
majority was changed to 18 but the definition was not changed here.
Therefore, if you're the age of majority you shouldn't be
considered a minor under the uniform probate code.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he wanted to hold the bill so members
could more thoroughly read and understand the memo from George
Utermohle. It is also his intention to contact Fish & Game.
SB 82 was held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|