Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/28/1997 02:10 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 109
"An Act relating to the management and disposal of
state land and resources; relating to certain remote
parcel and homestead entry land purchase contracts and
patents; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault explained that HB 109 is a housekeeping
measure intended primarily to clarify certain Title 38
statutes governing the Department of Natural Resources'
(DNR) management of State land and resources. The bill is
intended to bring greater efficiency to the management of
state lands by simplifying programs and reducing costs to
DNR.
Co-Chair Therriault noted the highlights of the legislation:
* Rewrite of the "remote cabin permit program"
to a program that would allow for either the
sale or lease for a remote cabin site. The
permit program was never implemented because
of the associated administrative costs with
only a minimal return to the State.
* Clarifies that the sale of state land does
not obligate the State to provide additional
services.
* Simplifies the methods to receive a homestead
parcel title by requiring that within five
years, a parcel must be lived on for 25
months or purchased at fair market value.
JANE ANGVIK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF LANDS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
commented that the Department supports HB 109 as it would
clean-up Title 38, resulting in the Division of Lands being
operated more efficiently. She added that the Department
also supports the amendments distributed to Committee
members. She spoke to the shore fisheries issue and the
Supreme Court ruling regarding that concern. Co-Chair
Therriault noted that section had been dropped from the
2
proposed legislation.
Representative J. Davies questioned why it would be
difficult for the Division of Lands to follow the rules of
the Supreme Court. Ms. Angvik replied that the Kachemak Bay
Watch case challenged DNR to authorize aquatic water sites
on State lands, a decision which called for significant
aquatic planning efforts. The Court recommended that the
Department participate in a land use plan identifying areas
where mari-culture could occur and which was to be done
after an accumulative evaluation of all events that could
occur over time. If the Division of Lands had to comply
with the Court ruling, it would take seven employees to
perform an area wide plan for all of the coastal regions of
the State.
Representative J. Davies inquired if the Court required the
Division to address the entire State for permit operations.
Ms. Angvik replied that the Court indicated that the
Division had failed in Southeast Alaska and Southcentral
Alaska, so they ruled that the entire State must be
undertaken.
Representative J. Davies asked if the Department was planing
to return to the Legislature with statutes which make sense.
Ms. Angvik explained that the Division is doing a thorough
job with each mari-culture location evaluation, although,
the Court requested a higher standard. Discussion followed
between Representative Davies and Ms. Angvik regarding land
use planning.
Representative Martin voiced concern for the shoreline
tidelands and the coastal communities in Southeast Alaska.
Ms. Angvik stated that the proposed amendment was designed
to allow up-line owners to obtain a non competitive lease
for dock sites. In a tideland area, a user can get a long-
term lease to be able to operate a dock. The amendment
would allow the tideland applicant to apply for a similar
application for fresh water lakes and rivers.
Co-Chair Therriault asked the terms of a lease for fresh
water shore land. Ms. Angvik replied that the terms would
probably be a 20 year lease for facility on a carbo
operation, instead of a year by year competitive auction.
The issue of value would be negotiated between the lessee
and the State through an appraisal. The amendments do not
address the negotiation process.
ROBERT NAUHEIM, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, offered to answer questions regarding
litigation which lead to the language of the bill.
3
Representative J. Davies noted that the litigation had
indicated that the process used was not adequate. The bill
has been accompanied by an amendment appropriate to that
concern. He asked how a facility could be created in the
future.
Mr. Nauheim explained that the legislation was written to
rescue several classes of aquatic farming operations which
are in a difficult legal position. The Alaska Supreme Court
stipulated that the application process was invalid. The
Court upheld that the identification method used by the
Department was faulty. The Department understood that,
initially, the identification process was to be informal so
as to aid the application process. The Supreme Court
interpreted the straight forward language to require a very
detailed formal planning process that would result in the
identification of districts where specific sites would be
identified for issuance of permits. That decision was
determined invalid. The new legislation coupled with the
newest amendments will call for the repeal of the old
system.
Representative J. Davies questioned if the regulations would
create a new process for permitting of the facilities. Mr.
Nauheim advised that the new language would command that the
commission adopt new regulations and establish criteria for
approving or denying the applications. Regulations will be
similar to the current ones.
Representative J. Davies asked if Amendment #3 was adopted,
would a permit applicant be applying for a finite period of
time. Ms. Angvik responded they would need to apply within
90 days.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on
file]. Representative Martin questioned if the
shoreline/tideline concerns in Southeast Alaska had been
adequately addressed. Ms. Angvik offered to work with
Representative Martin regarding his concerns. There being
NO OBJECTION to Amendment #1, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Copy on
file]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #3. [Copy on
file]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to report CS HB 109 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
4
CS HB 109 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Natural Resources dated 4/23/97.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|