HOUSE BILL NO. 218 An Act relating to property loaned to or held by museums. Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to adopt work draft #1-LS0786\H, Bannister, 3/3/00, as the version before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, commented that he had made a modification to the "H" draft and noted that he would make his comments to that version. Mr. Tibbles distributed a handout illustrating the "Timeline for Acquisition". [Copy on File]. Mr. Tibbles pointed out that the original bill had required return receipt notices which has been eliminated in the proposed version. The second notice requirement was eliminated and the timeline date was set at 90 days. Mr. Tibbles pointed out another concern regarding the "contracts". He stated that the language had been written "permissively" by the use of "may". The language would provide that there could be two exclusive mechanisms for buying property. He advised that language had been added to the definition to exclude all loans that have intent to transfer the title of the property. Co-Chair Therriault advised that if specifics were specified in the contract, that language would take preference. He pointed out that language on Page 2, Lines 16-18 had been deleted. Representative J. Davies questioned the 90-day timeline. He pointed out the requirement for four weeks of newspaper publishing. He noted that if there were a delay in initiating that process, it would not occur on the 90th day. He recommended that the 90th day should be replaced with language: "Following the four weeks of notice". KEVIN HAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO, explained that language would stipulate that taking ownership by the museum would happen on the 61st day after the first newspaper announcement which would push the 90-days back. Representative J. Davies pointed out that the 90 days was referenced on Page 2, Line 15. Mr. Tibbles added that section stipulates when it is required to be included in the notice. It does not set out the requirements for that provision. The section, which outlines the requirements is on Page 3, Subsection (E). Representative Phillips explained that the 90 days was only for the notification. That language does not indicate the notification process. Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is concern exists as it is stated "90 days", however, it could be pushed to 95 days or more. He recommended that the notice indicate the actual number of days. Representative J. Davies referenced Page 3, Subsection (E), Lines 3-8. That language reads that as of the 61st day. He questioned what would happen if the notice was out for only two weeks rather than the stipulated four weeks. He asked if it could be claimed that there was an interruption. Vice Chair Bunde explained that the owner must submit their claim within 90 days to access it. Representative J. Davies voiced concern that there could be an alternative attempt to make contact creating an arbitrary circumstance. Mr. Tibbles pointed out that there had been 60 days built in; the article will run for 30 days and then they will have an additional 30 days to make contact. Vice Chair Bunde interjected that an owner would have 90 days, however, the actual notification process would run for 100 days. Representative J. Davies recommended that the language be changed to the 31st day after the last public notice runs. He proposed a conceptual amendment, to Page 3, Line 4, which would require four weeks of newspaper notice. He voiced concern that the "61st" day might not mesh with the newspaper articles. Mr. Tibbles commented that seems to be the same stipulation; he questioned the need. He pointed out that the notice states that you have 90 days to respond. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the if the person came in on the "91st" day, they would not be precluded from making the claim. Vice Chair Bunde countered that they would be precluded. He commented that he agreed with Representative J. Davies perspective. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the wording on Page 2 references what the notices must include on Page 6. Vice Chair Bunde emphasized that the wording is not accurate. Co-Chair Therriault stipulated that he would have no problem making the language consistent. Representative J. Davies reiterated that it would need to be 31 days after the publication required in Subsection c was complete. Mr. Tibbles agreed that it was confusing. There are two notices, the written notice and the one itemized in the newspaper. That notice states that it is 30 days from one, and 60 days from the other. Representative J. Davies MOVED a conceptual amendment, Amendment #1 that the "museum requires title of property, 31 days after the completion of the notice requirements outlined in Subsection c". There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative J. Davies MOVED Amendment #2 which would make language on Page 2, Line 15, consistent with the conceptual Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to report CS HB 218 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 218 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note by Department of Education and Early Development.