STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
House of Representatives, Pierre
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the Chief Clerk of the
House has had under consideration the House Journal of the twenty-second day.
All errors, typographical or otherwise, are duly marked in the temporary journal for
correction.
And we hereby move the adoption of the report.
Timothy A. Rave, Chair
On the printed bill, delete everything after the enacting clause and insert:
"
Section 1. That
§
31-26-23
be amended to read as follows:
31-26-23.
When any highway along, under, or over which such facilities have been
constructed shall be changed, the permit holder shall, upon ninety days' notice in writing,
remove or relocate such facilities at its own cost.
If any highway or public entity infrastructure
is constructed or changed within the public right-of-way, the public entity or its representative
shall notify any affected utility that has electrical lines, communications lines, or pipelines and
allow the affected utility to participate in a coordination meeting during the planning or design
phase of the project, except as provided in this section. The coordination meeting shall allow
the affected utility to review the project scope or design and understand goals and objectives of
the proposed project. The meeting shall allow the public entity and affected utility to discuss
options to minimize construction delays, limit the impact of the construction on utility facilities,
and to minimize or eliminate costs associated with any utility removal or relocation. Such
options may not cause the public entity to incur additional costs unless an agreement is reached
to have the affected utility pay for the additional costs incurred by the public entity.
After the development meetings or after the written comment period, the permit holder shall,
upon ninety days notice in writing, remove or relocate the facilities at its own cost unless other
arrangements have been mutually agreed upon. If winter weather conditions make removal or
relocation impractical, the accrual of time within the ninety-day notification period shall be
suspended until conditions make removal or relocation practical. If a utility's facility is
discovered during construction that was not identified by the utility during the planning or
design phase, the ninety-day notice is not required and the utility shall coordinate with the public
entity to remove or relocate the facility as soon as practically possible for the project.
"
On the printed bill, delete everything after the enacting clause and insert:
"
Section 1. That
§
31-26-23
be amended to read as follows:
31-26-23.
When any highway along, under, or over which such facilities have been
constructed shall be changed, the permit holder shall, upon ninety days' notice in writing,
remove or relocate such facilities at its own cost.
If any highway or public entity infrastructure
is constructed or changed within the public right-of-way, the public entity or its representative
shall notify any affected known utility that has electrical lines, communications lines, or
pipelines and allow the affected utility to participate in a coordination meeting during the
planning or design phase of the project, except as provided in this section. The meeting shall
allow the public entity and affected known utility to discuss options to minimize construction
delays, limit the impact of the construction on utility facilities, and to minimize or eliminate
costs associated with any utility removal or relocation. No such option may cause the public
entity to incur additional costs unless a written agreement is reached to have the affected utility
pay for the additional costs incurred by the public entity.
After the coordination meetings or after the written comment period, the permit holder shall,
upon ninety days notice in writing, remove or relocate the facilities at its own cost unless other
arrangements have been mutually agreed upon in writing. If the public entity, in coordination
with the utility, determines that winter weather conditions make removal or relocation
impractical, the accrual of time within the ninety-day notification period shall be suspended
until conditions make removal or relocation practical. If a utility's facility is discovered during
construction that was not identified by the utility during the planning or design phase or during
the written comment period if the public entity determines that a coordination meeting will not
be held, the ninety-day notice is not required and the utility shall coordinate with the public
entity to remove or relocate the facility as soon as practically possible for the project.
"
On page 2, after line 1, insert:
"
Section 2. That chapter
10-45B
be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as
follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of
§
10-45B-8, the secretary shall determine and pay five
percent of the amount of the tax refund within ninety days of receipt of the return to the claimant
in accordance with §§ 10-59-22 and 10-59-23, and ninety-five percent shall be withheld by the
department until July 1, 2011. No interest shall be paid on the refund amount.".
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,
Endorsing the federal Homeowners and Bank Protection
Act.
WHEREAS,
the failure of the leadership of the United States Congress to pass the
Homeowner and Bank Protection Act of 2007 (HBPA) proposed by Lyndon LaRouche in his
July 25, 2007, webcast, has transformed a dire situation from one that could have remained
manageable through the autumn of 2007, into a breakdown crisis of not only the U.S. economy,
but of the world economy; and
WHEREAS,
the Congressional leadership instead chose a course of insulting treatment of
state and local legislative and associated bodies within the states, who clamored for the
Congress to enact the HBPA, as shown in the HBPA's passage by five state legislatures, and
more than 150 city councils across the United States, in addition to hundreds of endorsements
by trade union and other constituency leaders individually; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-
fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South
Dakota Legislature endorses and urges the passage of the federal Homeowners and Bank
Protection Act of 2007, as initiated by economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. This Act includes
the following provisions:
(1) Congress must establish a federal agency to place federal and state chartered banks
under protection, freezing all existing home mortgages for a period of months or
years necessary to adjust the values to fair prices, and restructure existing mortgages
at appropriate interest rates. This action would also write off all of the speculative
debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other forms of Ponzi
schemes that have plunged the banking system into bankruptcy;
(2) During the transitional period, all foreclosures shall be frozen, allowing American
families to retain their homes. Monthly payments, the equivalent of rental payments,
shall be made to designated banks, which can use the funds as collateral for normal
banking practices, thus recapitalizing the banking systems. These affordable monthly
payments will be factored into new mortgages, reflecting the deflating of the housing
bubble and the establishment of appropriate property valuations, and reduced fixed
mortgage interest rates. This shakeout will take several years to achieve. In the
interim period no homeowner would be evicted from his or her property, and the
federal and state chartered banks would be protected, so they can resume their
traditional functions, serving local communities, and facilitating credit for investment
in productive industries, agriculture, infrastructure, and other economic activity;
(3) State governors would assume the administrative responsibilities for implementing
the program, including the rental assessments to designated banks, with the federal
government providing the necessary credits and guarantees to ensure the successful
transition.
Was read the first time and the Speaker waived the committee referral.
Rep. Schrempp moved that HB 1239 be amended as follows:
On page 2, line 9, of the House State Affairs Committee engrossed bill, delete "one" and
insert "three".
Rep. Curd moved that HB 1202 be amended as follows:
On page 4, after line 9 of the printed bill, insert:
"
Section 2. That chapter
32-12A
be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read
as follows:
Any person who holds a waiver pursuant to section 1 of this Act shall, after one year of
holding the waiver, undergo a physical examination and submit to the employer a signed
statement from a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner that the person has
completed a physical examination.
Section 3. That chapter
32-12A
be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read
as follows:
No person who holds a waiver pursuant to section 1 of this Act may operate a school bus
with students present unless the person checks his or her blood glucose level no more than thirty
minutes before operating the bus. If the person operates a bus for a continuous duration that
exceeds eighty-nine minutes, the person shall check his or her blood glucose level each hour and
record the information. The person shall submit the information to the employer each day.".
Rep. Rausch moved that HB 1278 be amended as follows:
On page 1 of the printed bill, delete lines 4 to 14, inclusive, and insert:
"
Section 1. That
§
8-5-13
be amended to read as follows:
8-5-13.
No township may pass any ordinance that restricts
Except on property owned or
leased by the township, other than public highways as defined in
§
§
31-1-1 and 31-1-4, no
township may in any way restrict the
possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership,
manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any
ordinances
existing
restrictions
prohibited by this section are null and void.
On any property on which firearms or
ammunition are restricted pursuant to this section, the township shall post signs sufficient to
notify the public of the restriction.
Section 2. That
§
7-18A-36
be amended to read as follows:
7-18A-36.
No county may pass any ordinance that restricts
Except on property owned or
leased by the county, other than public highways as defined in
§
§
31-1-1 and 31-1-4, no county
may in any way restrict the
possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture,
or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any
ordinances
existing restrictions
prohibited by this section are null and void.
On any property on which firearms or ammunition
are restricted pursuant to this section, the county shall post signs sufficient to notify the public
of the restriction.
Section 3. That
§
9-19-20
be amended to read as follows:
9-19-20.
No municipality may pass any ordinance that restricts
Except on property owned
or leased by the municipality, other than public highways as defined in
§
§
31-1-1 and 31-1-4,
no municipality may in any way restrict the
possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership,
manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any
ordinances
existing
restrictions
prohibited by this section are null and void.
On any property on which firearms or
ammunition are restricted pursuant to this section, the municipality shall post signs sufficient
to notify the public of the restriction.
".
And that as so amended said bill do pass.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Local Government respectfully reports that it has had under
consideration HB
1189,
1244,
1277, and
1296 which were deferred to the 41st Legislative Day.