Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/01/2002 01:15 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 232-REMOTE RECREATIONAL CABIN SITE SALES Number 2786 CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 232, "An Act permitting state residents to purchase remote recreational cabin sites." Number 2722 DICK MYLIUS, Resource Assessment & Development Manager, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that this bill creates a new state land disposal but is similar in some respects to the remote recreational program established in 1997 by the legislature. It allows people to pick where they wish to stake and then apply to DNR for that site. The law generally describes what state land would be available under the program; it establishes spacing requirements for distances between sites and contains limits on the amount of waterfront land that can be staked. MR. MYLIUS explained that the program is on a first-come, first- served basis; applicants stake their two and a half acres, apply to DNR, and then survey, appraise, and purchase the parcel. Unlike laws regarding the existing state land disposal programs, the law does not authorize DNR to determine what areas are open when openings occur or to ensure there is adequate access before areas are opened. He said DNR's biggest concern with this program is that it duplicates an existing program that is working, creating a new state land disposal very similar to the existing remote recreational cabin program. Number 2630 MR. MYLIUS explained that this program was established by statute in 1997, but was funded for the first time only two years ago; last year DNR offered 295 parcels in ten areas. The department received almost 700 applications for the existing remote recreational cabin program opening last year. He said because the program was a new program and there wasn't time to prepare new areas for offering, the initial offerings were in [previously] homesteaded remote-cabin areas. He said DNR plans to offer another 300 "stakings" under this program in June. MR. MYLIUS said in future years, DNR will offer new and better areas under the existing remote recreational cabin program. It takes two to three years to make new areas available due to public review and notice requirements, best-interest findings, land-title work, and the need to coordinate with municipalities on platting and planning issues. This last step, the need to meet borough platting requirements, is essential to allow municipalities to have some control over how they develop. He said the amount of time to do this is significant; to get approvals of last year's projects in four Boroughs required 11 separate meetings before platting boards and planning commissions. MR. MYLIUS explained that the current program costs about $400,000 a year, and DNR forecasts annual revenues of about $400,000 starting in FY 05 [fiscal year 2005]. Because of the time needed to survey and appraise parcels, revenues are limited during the first several years of any stake-it-yourself program. Regardless of how the program is set up, stake-it-yourself programs are not big moneymakers; many past programs cost the state more to administer than the state ever received in revenue, although DNR believes the current program might generate a positive cash flow. Number 2610 MR. MYLIUS said in addition to duplicating this existing program, the remote recreational cabin program proposed by [this legislation] has several significant problems. First, the program does not provide an opportunity for either public notice, as required by the constitution, Article VIII, Section 10, or a best interest finding as required by AS 38.05.035(e). The bill requires that the sale be consistent with the public interest, but does not allow time for this to occur. He said the bill gives DNR only 30 days to approve an application; it is impossible within 30 days to do a land title review, best- interest finding and public notice; to receive and process public comments; and to issue a final decision. Number 2534 MR. MYLIUS said the second problem is the program will cause difficulty in meeting most municipalities' platting requirements. The current remote recreational cabin program was designed so that municipalities could exercise some control over how land disposals occur within their boundaries. [This legislation] does not allow for such municipal input. For example, it sets a maximum lots size of 2.5 acres, which is below minimum lot sizes required in many boroughs and below the 10-acre size generally accepted for onsite sewage disposal. Number 2493 MR. MYLIUS explained that DNR has been working closely with municipalities to make the existing remote recreational cabin program work. For example, last year DNR had 11 meetings on the program including 4 separate meetings with the Fairbanks North Star Borough Platting Board and 2 with the Matanuska-Susitna Platting Board. He said as a result of input from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, DNR dropped four of the eight areas it was considering for last year's sale. He said under this bill there is no opportunity to work with the boroughs on these kinds of issues. If this bill does not exempt this program from municipal platting requirements, then DNR would need to either approve parcels that have not been approved by the platting authority or disapprove any applications submitted for parcels within boroughs. It would be difficult to imagine that DNR would ignore local platting requirements. MR. MYLIUS offered his third point, that this program will be difficult to implement because the legislation gives limited guidance to DNR or the public. The law has few restrictions. It does not allow DNR to determine what areas are open or when openings occur, or to ensure there is adequate access before areas are open, he reiterated. As a result, DNR anticipates that when the program goes into effect, there will be considerable confusion with the public regarding where state land exists that is available, conflicting claims to parcels, and arguments about staking. The Department of Natural Resources also anticipates significant access concerns, such as staking on trails, staking on non-state land, and more. He pointed out that the current program avoids those problems by carefully doing land status research and access research before areas are made available for disposal. Number 2445 MR. MYLIUS said DNR's fourth concern is that the program will be expensive, particularly in its initial years. The Department of Natural Resources' fiscal note shows $585,000 for the first year and slightly less in subsequent years. Because such large areas are being opened, there will be considerable confusion with the public regarding what land is available. He explained that with few rules, there will be conflicting claims that DNR will need to resolve. Number 2418 MR. MYLIUS suggested that this will place considerable demands on DNR to provide information to the public, particularly through the DNR public information offices in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. He said DNR will need to provide the public with accurate land-status information for millions of acres of state land so the public knows what land is available, including the location of existing third-party interests, Native allotment locations, and trail and access information. He said this program is also very inefficient because it allows applicants to stake where and when they decide, and then requires DNR to meet deadlines for approvals for each individual parcel. The program will require DNR to do separate title reports, best interest findings, public notices, and so forth for each applicant. The current program allows DNR to combine those for large areas. He said DNR also has several very specific concerns about the bill that it would be happy to share with the committee. Number 2351 CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Mr. Mylius to provide a copy of his written testimony to the committee. Number 2340 MR. MYLIUS, in response to Representative Kerttula, reiterated his concern about the difficulty of meeting borough platting requirements. He explained that borough platting approval is required in order to subdivide land; subdivision is defined by creating even one new lot. He said each one of the parcels is going to be considered by municipalities as a subdivision. Under the existing program, before DNR identifies which areas it will open, it goes to the platting board and asks for conceptual approval of the land offering. He said this program doesn't allow such an opportunity. The most significant of the types of things that the platting boards look at is probably minimum lot size. MR. MYLIUS explained that most boroughs have minimum lot sizes of 5 to 10, which allows adequate space for onsite sewage disposal system; this law sets a parcel size of 2.5 acres, which is below that minimum. He said it doesn't provide DNR with any ability to go to the boroughs and get their approval or disapproval. The concern is that there is no way to involve the borough platting authority. One problem is that when the final survey is done, the borough platting boards may not approve those surveys because they aren't minimum lot size; that [would occur] after the person had already invested money into staking, surveying, and appraising the land. Number 2203 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that the language used in proposed AS 38.05.610, line 5, of the bill - "the commissioner shall" - may conflict with the language in AS 38.05.600, which is that the commissioner "may". He expressed concern that some of the "notwithstandings" may not be in the best interest of the state. He commented that he is in favor of private ownership of more land, but isn't sure this is the way to do it. He said this bill bypasses the previously used lottery system. He noted that the terms of sale are covered. He expressed concern that the bypass in AS 38.05.067, which allows preference for veterans, may not be in the best interest of the state. He commented that there are some concerns that probably need to be addressed with somebody from the director's office. Number 2094 CO-CHAIR MASEK appointed Representatives Fate, Green, and Kerttula to a [subcommittee] to prepare a proposed committee substitute (CS) and try to resolve the issues. Number 2016 REPRESENTATIVE FATE, speaking as sponsor of HB 232, stated that during the last two years there has been acceleration of the land disposal by the State of Alaska. He pointed out that the bill was put together with the help of Carol Carroll, Director, Division of Support Services, Department of Natural Resources, who is [also] employed by the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs. He said there are some things that he tried to incorporate that the [committee] had discussed. REPRESENTATIVE FATE suggested that everything is done by lottery not by design, but because of necessity. He suggested that there are too many applicants for one piece of disposal property; the [state] has the disposals because of efficiency in larger projects, and the disposals [are] near subdivisions. He said the [current] disposals do have the advantage of [acquiring land] in remote areas. He suggested that these [issues] can be overcome. He said he believes it is necessary to allow people to obtain the piece of property that they want, especially those people who have used those pieces of property for three or more years. He indicated that the amendments pertain to these issues. He reiterated that he would like to have Carol Carroll involved in the subcommittee. Number 1872 CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated HB 232 would be held for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|