Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/03/2004 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 319-REMOTE REC.CABIN SITE SALES/LOTTERY SALE Number 2761 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to the disposal of state land by lottery; and relating to the disposal, including sale or lease, of remote recreational cabin sites." Number 2750 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt HB 319 for discussion purposes. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the motion had been made for Version H [the original bill version]. Number 2730 REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor, read his sponsor statement [included in the committee packet]. He clarified that, regarding those who will incur the cost of surveys and appraisals [in the second paragraph], the word "they" means those who buy the land. He noted that, while not specified in the sponsor statement, the economic trickle-down effect could be as much as "four times." He said, "Passage [of HB 319] will expand the opportunity to satisfy the dream of Alaskans by allowing them to secure, in fee simple, a favorite piece of property in a setting that epitomizes the reason that we live in ... this great state...." REPRESENTATIVE FATE added that the bill would enhance the present Department of Natural Resources (DNR) programs, but does not take the place of them. He said it's a win-win situation; it not only gives an individual private, peaceable ownership [of land], but also stimulates local and state economy. Number 2583 REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to Article VIII, Section 9, of the Alaska State Constitution, and indicated that it gives the power to the legislature to provide the process under which lands may be sold. He noted that there is also a statute in law that allows for the sale of these lands. He stated that [HB 319] is a resource-based economic bill, which is based on fee-simple ownership - "the title to the land." Currently, he noted, most of Alaska's land is "nonproductive." Because of that, it is exempt from local taxation. Most of the land is not an asset to the state or to an individual. It becomes an asset under fee- simple ownership. He said he has heard newcomers and old-timers alike say that they wish they could "have a piece of Alaska." Number 2452 REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered his understanding that this issue started out in the Twenty-Second Alaska State Legislature as HB [233] and was worked on by those in the mining industry, DNR, and the environmental community. The result of that continued work is the bill before the committee today, he said, including some amendments in the committee packet. Number 2407 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to a page listing issues raised by the Alaska Conservation Voters [included in the committee packet]. He said he would like those [issues] addressed. Number 2215 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to page 3, line 14, [of the bill], which read as follows: (e) The space between remote recreational cabin sites offered under this section may not be less than 660 feet in any direction. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the intent of the bill is to make a patchwork of private ownership which is not contiguous. He asked why there is so much space in between the sites. REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that this started out with a larger separation to preserve the remoteness of the site. He said DNR pointed out that that could be problematic. He indicated that changing from 2.5 acres to 5.0, helps [in platting the land], as well as provides adjoining acreage. He stated that 660 feet really provides a more remote site, which is the [aim] of [HB 319]. REPRESENTATIVE FATE listed some types of land that are available, including land with several lots together. However, what is not available currently is [land for] a remote cabin site. He clarified [the bill would provide] that if the state wants to "select an area, once a nomination is made, ... they can then select a broader area within that area." He said [the legislation] doesn't encourage the congestion that sometimes occurs in a (indisc.) area. REPRESENTATIVE FATE, in response to a follow-up question by Representative Seaton, explained that the change to five acres is in the language of an amendment [still to be] offered. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the same philosophy is being used in regard to rivers and lakes, [requiring] that the frontage must be at least 300 feet and not exceed 400 [feet], and that there must be one quarter mile from another parcel with river frontage. REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered that it is the same, "except for lakes." He explained that the computation regarding lakes was made based on how much water it takes to safely [land and take off in a float plane]. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is still trying to get "the feeling of the distribution of a lot." Regarding the 660-foot separation, he asked what provision there is for access. For example, he asked if [the bill] would give provisions for road building or "anything else." REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that the state would not guarantee rights of way or fire fighting for a remote site. He mentioned that there was a tremendous amount of research done on identifying RS2477s. He stated that these [parcels] are remote sites and, as such, it would be up to the applicant to provide the transportation to them, to develop them, and to protect them. He said the state would be waived from those liabilities. Number 1948 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what discussion would have to happen between DNR and the person buying a remote parcel regarding how that person [stakes out a piece of property]. REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that in the past, the surveys and appraisals have been done at a cost to the state; however, [under this legislation] the people would pay for those surveys themselves. He noted some exceptions, such as land that is picked up through lotteries. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the language in the bill stipulates size of land. He said, for example, if he went out to nominate a parcel of land and wanted to share a lake with someone, he would want to ensure that he didn't nullify his application by "getting ... 20 feet over." He said he is wondering what the working process is on that nomination, regarding how much latitude DNR [would have] "to move it," and what would have to happen, for example, if he has already "brushed it." REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded, "We have added personnel in there to do that." People may not know, for example, whether their land is overlaid by a native allotment or whether there's a military operation area (MOA) on it. There would need to be a status map made available, so that people can actually look to see if the land is open for entry. Number 1664 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there is any language in the bill that requires that a configuration [of a parcel of land] be within certain parameters. REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered, "On riverbanks and on lakes, yes." He said he cannot recall a limitation inland. He mentioned 300 feet for shoreline frontage. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if that means a person could have a pear-shaped small valley, for example. REPRESENTATIVE FATE surmised that as a practical matter, the department would probably provide regulations. He offered an example. He indicated it would limit "the amount of fudging in the [staking] of ground." Number 1545 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that "this" calls for 660 feet in any direction, as well as "a distance from another recreational cabin site." He offered an example of a house on the Kenai River that is not certified as a recreational cabin site. He offered his understanding that the proposed language [of the bill] wouldn't prevent nominating a piece [of land] on the riverfront adjoining someone else's house. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that's correct. He said, "Nomination is not automatic; this still gives the prerogatives to the commissioner to approve or disapprove that after the nomination. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the land could still border with a native allotment. He asked if it is correct that "the distances" are only from recreational sites and not from other pieces of property. JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, answered on behalf of Representative Fate, sponsor. Regarding the example of the Kenai River cabin, he said it must be in a 660-foot buffer zone. He stated that he is not really certain, even on the Kenai River, that there would be a situation where there would be a remote recreational cabin where there is already a residence. He surmised that that land would be in private hands already. Number 1360 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Caribou Hills and Caribou Lake, for example, hold both private and state lands, and there are recreational cabins "all over the Caribou Hills." He explained that he is trying to figure out whether [HB 319] has a buffer between "existing," or whether it is "just between recreational (indisc.)." Number 1327 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH began discussion of Amendment 1, which read as follows: Page 3, line 2: Delete "12" Insert "24" Page 3, line 5, following "private sale": Insert "under (g) of this section" Page 3, lines 9 - 12: Delete all material and insert: "(1) prepare a schedule of land offerings under this section from lands that were not selected by the state for mineral values, except for lands having a proven high mineral potential based on a geophysical survey or geological evaluation completed not more than 15 years before the offering, and identify the parcels for disposal each year; and" Page 3, lines 21 - 30: Delete all material and insert: "(g) A person may nominate a parcel for disposal under this section and request a right of first refusal. If the commissioner accepts the nomination of a parcel for disposal, the commissioner may also provide for disposal of additional parcels in the surrounding area, subject to (d)(1) and (f) of this section." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Amendment 1 would delete [subsection] (g) on page 3 entirely. He asked if that [decision to delete subsection (g)] was based upon the input from the Alaska Miners Association. REPRESENTATIVE FATE reiterated that concerns had been expressed by environmental groups, miners groups, and DNR, and he indicated that those concerns are addressed [in Amendment 1]. Number 1240 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Fate if he would like to "offer this amendment at this time." REPRESENTATIVE FATE said yes. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected for purposes of discussion. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to remarks by Representative Gruenberg, clarified that the committee was addressing Amendment 1 in parts, but was not treating those parts as separate amendments. REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained the changes that Amendment 1 would affect. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the input from the Alaska Miners Association was in the form of a letter in the committee packet, dated January 23, 2004. Number 0989 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the Alaska Miners Association makes a good case in its letter for adding "and geologic evaluation" to the bill. Amendment 1, he noted, actually adds the phrase "or geological evaluation". He said he thinks the "or" is better. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned the committee's attention to page 3, lines 10-11 of the bill, and read the phrase "having a low mineral potential". He noted that Amendment 1 uses the words "except for lands having a proven high mineral potential", which he said "flips it around." He said he feels more comfortable with the current language in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that "low mineral potential" can be [ambiguous]. He suggested it could mean "one color in a pan" or "ten colors in a pan." He said [the language in Amendment 1] achieves the same thing through an evaluation. He added that it also sets some sort of standard of high potential. He explained, "If it's high potential, then that land sometimes should not be selected for a remote cabin site." In response to a request for a definition of "color in a pan," he said that gold plate itself is "just called a color." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the word "proven", surmised that the sponsor is assuming that DNR would, by regulation, define the term "high proven mineral potential". He said he does not want it to be a vague delegation that is without standard. In response to a question by Representative Fate, he clarified that he wants to know how that phrase will be administered by the department. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that someone from DNR could address that concern later. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said it seems to him that "the nomenclature 'low' is more prone to litigiousness than 'high', which does set a standard...." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said his question would then focus more on the word "proven". Number 0589 MR. POUND stated his assumption that, between the geophysical and the geological evaluation, there are already established standards in place. He indicated his understanding that "a proven high" is almost a technical term in the mineral [world]. Number 0538 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the portion of Amendment 1 that would add language at page 3, lines 9-12 of the bill [text provided previously]. He noted that the word "except" was used. He offered his understanding that the [lands] that are "excepted from this" are those that have high mineral potential, and are available for remote cabin sites. REPRESENTATIVE FATE told Representative Seaton that that language means just the opposite. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON repeated the language in question again. He said, "So, the exception is for those that have a high mineral potential from those that were not selected for mineral value. I don't think that's what we mean, but that's what I believe it says." Number 0383 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that the language in question differs a bit from the language of the Alaska Miners Association. He added his belief that the drafter of the amendment may have missed something in the translation. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that, with all due respect, he doesn't think that most judges or lawyers would [interpret] the language as Representative Seaton did. Instead, they would say there are two different categories of lands that would not be available [as land offerings]: one category would be comprised of lands that have been selected as having mineral values, and the other would be comprised of lands that have a high mineral potential. He added that he is not sure he understands the difference; however, he thinks the drafter was attempting to exempt both of those. Number 0248 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said it's not that clear. Number 0203 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that if Amendment 1 is to be adopted, he wants that language made clearer. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he would accept a conceptual amendment for purposes of clarification. Number 0129 MR. POUND turned to the last portion of Amendment 1, which he said would allow a first right of refusal to someone who nominates a parcel [for disposal]. It would be up to "the commissioner, through the director" to grant that first right of refusal. The committee took a brief at-ease at 9:34 a.m. TAPE 04-12, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. POUND noted that the last portion of Amendment 1 would also address a need for technical clarification by referencing [subsection] (d), [paragraph] (1). Number 0099 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that this portion of Amendment [1] would delete the language requiring a person to provide an affidavit to the commissioner showing at least three consecutive years of recreational use [of the parcel], and replace it with language that would allow a person just to nominate a parcel and request first right of refusal, without showing any use of the land at all. MR. POUND said that's correct. Number 0163 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH gave an example of three different people who each have visited the same spot, but at different times of the year. Furthermore, if HB 319 passes, they each could nominate that parcel for disposal and request a right of first refusal. He asked how that situation would be dealt with. He asked if [the commissioner] would just throw up his/her hands and open the land to public market. MR. POUND responded that that would certainly be his/her option. He said it is important to note that all the parcels must involve a public notice process. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested the possibility that if it is up to the discretion of the commissioner to grant the right of first refusal, then somebody might say of [the person who was granted that right] that he/she had a lobbyist get the commissioner to grant that right, which might result in litigation over whether it was a good use of discretion. MR. POUND replied that the aspect of litigation would be up to interpretation. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that it happens a lot [that people love the same parcel of land]. He questioned whether it would be better [for the commissioner] to say, "We're going to just open this to a bid," in order to get away from the perception of unfairness or inside dealing, for example. Number 0420 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that it's completely discretionary, but "they can make that decision." He added, "If that situation arose, then this piece of legislation allows for that." Number 0455 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about a possible situation where a corporation takes kayak trips and uses the same parcel over and over. He noted that there are places like that - for example, tent sites. REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered, "The applicant will determine that." He clarified that the commissioner will make the determination based on the application. He indicated that there are probably ways to make the process a fair one. Number 0615 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that it's easy to see how growing ecotourism companies could start staking [land] all over the place, to the exclusion of the intent of the bill, which he said he thinks is to allow an individual who has grown up here to "get a piece of Alaska." Number 0600 MR. POUND referred to AS 38.05.035, which he said is existing statute addressing the issue of state land and individuals who have erected a building on the land and is using the land for bona fide business purposes for five or more years, either under a federal permit, or without the need for a permit. He indicated that there's a separate process for commercial [land use]. He concluded, "We're not dealing with that particular statute - it's already in place." Number 0709 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that [HB 319] does not have a referral to House Judiciary Standing Committee; therefore, he suggested that it is within this committee's jurisdiction to deal with the issue of fairness. Number 0762 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he sees no limitation on the number of sites that can be applied for, or that they have to be applied for by an individual. He said it seems to him that Princess Tours could solicit from the commissioner every quarter mile down the river where that company takes tours. He stated that if the purpose of the bill is to "get it into economic development hands," then the commissioner would "almost be directed to grant those." He said that this seems to be allowed under this proposed legislation, even if it's not the intent of it. He suggested that the sponsor change that. REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that this is another tool to add to those the department already uses to dispose of land. He said the intent of the bill is certainly not to "create individuals who run around selecting land all over the country." He said he suspects that that would be looked at askance by the commissioner. Number 0939 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said there's nothing that would prohibit someone from going around and asking to buy the land from other individuals and then eventually consolidating those sites under a corporate shell. MR. POUND said he certainly thinks that the 660-foot buffer would be a disincentive to a commercial venture. He also noted that there is language in existing statute regarding requirements for a buffer anywhere from 50 to 100 feet from the riverfront. Number 1029 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he would like the committee to adopt Amendment 1, and then subsume it into a committee substitute. Then he would like representatives from DNR to look at the committee substitute and reevaluate the fiscal note that accompanied the original bill. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he would not object to that, with the understanding that the committee has still not dealt with his question regarding the proven high mineral potential. Number 1101 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the Alaska Miners Association had mentioned an airstrip in the last part of its letter. He said he noticed that the sponsor didn't accept that group's proposal. MR. POUND said the sponsor felt that a 25-acre lot has the potential to make it a commercial venture. If said, "If you're landing an aircraft out there, we'd tend to prefer it be a floatplane ...." Number 1200 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that this proposed legislation would give the private sector access to own land. He asked if there is already such a program and what the hold-up would be. He said, "Certainly the legislature has dealt with this ... over and over ...." REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned taking people to see lottery lands, and those people saying that they wouldn't purchase the land at any price. He confirmed that programs do exist; however, even though "you don't select what you would like to select yourself." The proposed legislation is an effort to get more land to people who would pay for the surveys. The state then reaps the harvest of the economy that it's stimulating, while the individual gets fee-simple ground. He added, "He gets fee-simple ground before, but a lot of times it's not the kind of ground that he wanted." Number 1350 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Chair Weyhrauch announced that Amendment 1 would be incorporated into a committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for confirmation that the portion of the amendment that he had previously expressed concern over would be rewritten. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH answered, "Conceptually." REPRESENTATIVE FATE agreed, and he added that [he and his staff] would continue to work with the Department of Natural Resources. Number 1400 MR. POUND turned to page 3, line 31, under [subsection] (h), which read: (h) A parcel sold under this section may not exceed two and one-half acres. MR. POUND proposed [Amendment 2] as follows: Page 3, line 31 Between "exceed" and "acres" Delete "two and one-half" Insert "five" Number 1460 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. [HB 319 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|