Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/17/1997 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 109 - MANAGEMENT OF STATE LAND AND RESOURCES Number 0319 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was House Bill No. 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." Number 0330 SARA FISHER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Gene Therriault, came forward to present the sponsor statement. She advised that she had received a copy of the fiscal note 15 minutes before the meeting. MS. FISHER stated that HB 109 is meant to be a housekeeping measure and is intended primarily to clarify certain Title 38 statutes governing the Department of Natural Resources' management of state land and resources. It is intended to bring greater efficiency to the management of state lands by simplifying programs and reducing costs to the DNR. MS. FISHER noted that the sponsor statement outlines highlights of HB 109. The bill is not intended to be a complete rewrite of Title 38 but is a step in the effort to streamline state government. She advised that an extensive sectional analysis was included in committee packets. She further advised that Mr. LeFebvre of the Division of Land could answer technical questions. Number 0401 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that this "housekeeping bill" is 20 pages long. MS. FISHER said the previous year's HB 46 contained more sections, including sections on mining that were removed and introduced as a separate bill; she believes that bill has made it completely through the system. This one is related strictly to the Division of Land statutes. Number 0457 RICHARD LeFEBVRE, Deputy Director, Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He advised that Mary Kaye Hession was also on teleconference; they were there primarily to answer questions. MR. LeFEBVRE agreed this is primarily a housekeeping bill, although there are a couple of items such as the "remote recreational sale or lease program" being included. The bill will make operations a little more efficient. Over the years, Title 38 has been amended, and many of these are "clean-up" issues that need addressed. Most had been discussed in more detail the previous year. Everything controversial that he is aware of had been removed from the bill. Number 0513 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that he had just received a copy of the fiscal note. He asked whether $93,000 would be saved by this bill. MR. LeFEBVRE said that was what was proposed. He pointed out that there is further explanation in the bill analysis. He explained, "Our zero fiscal impact assumes that the bill's improvement to the land management and disposal laws will partially offset the division's recent proposed budget cuts or past budget cuts, allowing us to do a lot of the processing more efficiently. So that's where we've added the $93,000, that that would be money, then, that would be able to be deposited in the general fund for appropriation, however you feel is necessary." Number 0558 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what the changes are in the homestead and home site programs. He further asked whether it will cost Alaskans more money to obtain those. MR. LeFEBVRE said he does not see that it would cost Alaskans any more than it probably would today. It clarifies language and provides for a purchase option. He deferred to Ms. Hession for details. Number 0595 MARY KAYE HESSION, Program Support, Central Office, Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She explained that changes to the homestead law would increase one initial fee. There would be a $20-per-acre, up- front payment instead of the current $5-per-acre payment. Essentially, this is a one-time rental fee that lasts for the duration of a homestead entry permit, which is five years. The homesteader during that time could either live on the parcel and then get title to it, paying only the survey costs that the state paid up-front to offer it as a surveyed parcel, or within the five years, the person could buy it at fair market value. MS. HESSION said currently, there is another way to purchase homesteads. However, it is quite complicated and confusing to some applicants. At present, in order to buy it at fair market value at the end of the five years, the person needs to have built a permanent, habitable dwelling. Similarly, to prove up on the parcel and obtain it by just paying survey costs, without paying fair market value of the land, the person also has to have built a permanent, habitable dwelling. MS. HESSION said this housekeeping measure would remove the requirement of constructing a permanent, habitable dwelling. They expect that people who want to prove up on a parcel would go ahead and build a house, but they would not be forced to do so. They see this as a savings for the agency because it is expensive to travel repeatedly to homesteads to check whether a house has been built and if so, whether it satisfies the standard of being a permanent, habitable dwelling. Furthermore, it has resulted in a number of appeals. Ms. Hession believes it is simpler to provide two options: either live there and acquire it for the survey costs or simply buy it. Number 0680 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked which section of the bill Ms. Hession was addressing. MS. HESSION said the changes in the homestead law are in Sections 36 and 37. However, there are "associated repealers" in Section 41. Number 0709 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether there are any major new land programs indicated in the rewrite; whether any opportunity currently enjoyed by the public through one or more programs is being eliminated; and whether this simply brings Title 38 into line with what the DNR already does. MS. HESSION replied that this bill would repeal what is currently called "remote cabin permits." That has been on the books for a number of years but never used. However, it replaces that with a program similar to the original "open to entry program" or the "remote parcel program," where people would acquire a cabin site for recreational purposes, obtaining a five-year lease that was renewable for an additional five years. At any time during the ten-year period of the two leases, if they wanted to survey the parcel and buy it, they had that option. Both of those programs were quite attractive to people to get cabin sites outside of subdivisions. Number 0786 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated his understanding that this is essentially the same as a bill unanimously passed two years ago by the House. Language relating to set-net sites, controversial in the Senate, had been removed. Number 0837 MS. FISHER affirmed that. She said the only difference between HB 46 last year and this bill is they pulled out the mining sections. Number 0856 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether this bill would help facilitate more land disposal. MR. LeFEBVRE replied that it provides the DNR with the means to make additional offerings but not the funding to prepare the land, where necessary, prior to making an offering. Number 0907 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether that requires a capital appropriation. MR. LeFEBVRE said yes, the department would propose it through the capital program requests. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, assuming the legislature received a capital request for that, whether the quadrupling of the per-acre fee until a homestead was proved up on would entirely offset the DNR's operating costs. MR. LeFEBVRE asked whether Co-Chairman Ogan was talking specifically about homesteads. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN mentioned the fee going up from $5 to $20 per acre until the person proved up on the land. MR. LeFEBVRE said that is correct; it is a one-time fee. Number 0953 MS. HESSION clarified that what she was explaining earlier was just for homesteads. However, the division has quite a few different ways to offer land. For example, they can offer subdivision lots either through a lottery or an auction. In addition, they can offer homesteads, which are usually larger parcels, or home sites, which generally are not larger than five acres. The $20-per-acre fee only applies to homesteads. It is a one-time fee that lasts for the duration of a homestead entry permit, which is five years. Number 0987 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what size a typical homestead is. MS. HESSION said homesteads of nonagricultural land are limited by law to 40 acres, and usually they are that size. However, sometimes the division had offered 20-acre parcels. Agricultural homesteads can be up to 160 acres; they are usually between 80 and 160 acres. Number 1010 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said a person could then get a 40-acre homestead for $800 until proved up on; for a 160-acre site, that would be $3,200. MS. HESSION said she believed his math was correct. However, a person who proves up on a homestead would also be required to reimburse the state for the cost of surveying that parcel. The state must survey it before it is offered. Costs run in the $3,000 range for a "good-size parcel." Number 1052 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to another, unspecified piece of legislation and advised there was an exemption relating to cadastral surveys on whole sections. He asked whether it would be worthwhile to possibly amend this to not require those on the larger home site parcels. MS. HESSION said that other legislation exempts the state from one survey requirement but not others. Usually, before a section can be further subdivided, to break it down into individual homesteads, home sites or subdivision lots, for example, the cadastral surveyors set monuments on the township corners. In addition, they usually set them at two-mile intervals between the township corners and at the section corners. This way, the property buyer has a much better chance of locating his or her lot. MS. HESSION explained that although it is common for private land owners to do further subdivision of their parcels by aliquot parts, meaning they do not do any additional field surveys or place monuments on each subdivision parcel being offered, they have corners to start with. However, the state starts with nothing. They must put in some corners initially, before they can break it down into more manageable parcels to be offered for sale or for homesteads, for example. Number 1164 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said there was "some sentiment about offering land to Alaskans before they were offered outside the state of Alaska." He asked if that would be in any of these provisions. MS. HESSION said that is an existing law. Before the department offers land at auction, the first offering must be to Alaska residents. However, if no Alaskan bids on the parcel or expresses interest in buying it, the department can make it available for sale on a first-come, first-served basis to anybody. The only exception is when the department offers agricultural, commercial or industrial land, which can be offered to anyone. Number 1231 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted there is a provision that a person does not have to personally appear in land lottery proceedings. He asked the reason for that and what credentials an Alaskan resident must show. MS. HESSION said dropping the requirement to appear in person was in response to a court decision ruling it unconstitutional to, in effect, limit participation to people who lived closest to the parcels being offered. She said that needs to be cleaned up in the statute. However, to apply for a lottery sale of land, people must be Alaskan residents. They must submit "satisfactory evidence" of residency. Normally, their names can be looked up in the rolls of the permanent fund dividend program. Other evidence such as voter registration information can be used as well. Number 1334 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he understands that remote cabin sites and other disposals can only be done if the land has been classified for the appropriate purpose. He asked whether all state lands, or substantial parts, are suitably classified to make these disposals, or whether there is a realistic possibility of that in the near future. MS. HESSION advised that although she could obtain figures from the department's current land use plans, she did not have them in her head. She said a substantial portion of the state has gone through the planning process, through various area plans. A lot of acreage has been classified for either settlement purposes, which are unrestricted sales, or for agricultural purposes, which under previous law had to be sold in a special way. She indicated the latter would probably change shortly. She said a substantial inventory of land could be made available. Number 1414 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that he would hold HB 109 over until the following week.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|