Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/07/1997 03:50 PM Senate 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
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced HB 109 to be up for consideration.
SARAH FISHER, Staff to Representative Gene Therriault, said HB 109
is intended to clarify certain Title 38 statutes. There are no
changes to the shore fisheries leases. They have also pulled out
mining sections which are dealt with in HB 46.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he would like to go through the bill by
sections. MR. DAVID ROGERS, MS. JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division o
Land, and Commissioner of Natural Resources JOHN SHIVELY joined the
committee.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD briefly reviewed section 1 - 5. He said it
abolishes the land bank and adds "identified and classified under
adopted regional land use plans."
MS. ANGVIK explained under laws passed over the last decade
regional land use plans are used to identify lands that would be
available and offered for private ownership. More than 2 million
acres have been conveyed and classified through this process.
Therefore, it is their conclusion that the land bank is now
obsolete, because the methodology for disposal of land is through
the land use plans.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if regional land use plans are adopted in
any place that anyone would want to dispose of land. He did not
want to add another requirement that was another barrier to
disposing of land. MS. ANGVIK explained that there are land use
plans in a majority of the State, but there is not one in Kodiak or
in the southwest portion of the State. They could do a site
specific disposal in Kodiak without a land use plan. She said they
can lease land and permit land and they can do site specific plans
for a wide variety of purposes, but she didn't know for sure if
they could sell it.
Number 250
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the Kenai has a comprehensive land use
plan they have been messing with for the last 12 years. MS. ANGVIK
and it would be finished by Christmas.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if there would be a nomination process to
amend that. MS. ANGVIK replied that all land use plans can be
amended and there have been land disposals by the State on the
Kenai Peninsula, notwithstanding the fact that the area wide plan
has not yet been fully adopted.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that section 6 is repealed and reenacted to
read the commissioner "may" annually submit an appropriation
request. The old one said the commissioner "shall." MS. ANGVIK
said the intent of this provision is to have land disposals being
regarded as the other resource disposal programs of DNR so it would
be included in the annual budgets as opposed to a separate category
that is required under existing statute. It requires land
disposals the same as they do gravel sale disposals or forest or
oil and gas disposals. This would not require a separate request
of the legislature for the appropriation to do so.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this administration had ever submitted an
appropriation request for land disposal to the governor with the
budget. MS. ANGVIK said she didn't think so. CHAIRMAN HALFORD
asked why they would change a law they ignored anyway. MS. ANGVIK
replied that the intention is two-fold and the first is it's
mandatory that they do this every year and she thinks that it is
quite correct that they do not. The second is that should there be
a request for a disposal of land that they actually provide the
full costs associated with that disposal including the survey and
appraisal of the lands.
MS. ANGVIK said that currently the land disposal program consists
of disposals through municipal governments under municipal
conveyance programs as well as disposals to individuals under
preference rights. The last general disposal occurred in the fa
of 1996 and they still have some over-the-counter parcels as a
result of that offering.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said his question about section 7 was the deletion
on line 12 of the term "staking and lease." In the old first
remote parcel program, and then homestead program, the methodology
that was used in areas that didn't have surveyed subdivision was
that the entrant had to stake it, lease it until he paid for the
survey, get the survey, and then purchase the land for fair market
value. He thought by deleting "staking and lease" they were
deleting that program essentially. MS. ANGVIK replied in 1988 the
law was changed eliminating staking as a legal description
requirement because it became obsolete in the year the homesteading
law was changed to require the department to do cadastral surveys
before offering the parcels (instead of making the homesteader
survey it five years later).
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what happened to the follower of the remote
parcel program and if there was any program where the entrant
chooses the location, surveys it within the cadastral survey, pays
for the survey and the land.
SENATOR GREEN asked if there was anything in section 7 which
affects what they did in the agriculture land disposals. MS.
ANGVIK replied no and said that the land disposals are
significantly smaller than the agriculture parcels. An aliquot
park disposal would really leave the owner unclear on where they
were on the ground.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that section 8 didn't do any harm.
The committee reviewed section 9 which skipped to section 29 where
MS. ANGVIK explained they are trying to create a new remote
recreational cabin site leasing program and take away the old
public use cabin facilities. MR. ROGERS added they are replacing
the old remote cabin permit with a remote recreation lease.
Regarding section 10, MS. ANGVIK said the assessment program was
designed to have municipal governments tell us what they were going
to do with the land and how much they had disposed of. There was
a grant program, that no longer exists, that was associated with
this to help them get their selections. Since they didn't have the
grant program anymore, they didn't see a reason to have this
language.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked why they even have this section in the law
since it was part of a package that was designed to encourage
municipalities to dispose of land in Juneau and in places where
they couldn't get land out because the only decent land was already
owned by the municipalities and not by the State. The program was
a total failure and never worked.
TAPE 97-33, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was flagging section 12 and said he liked
section 13, page 5, line 16 and changing "may" to "should." MS.
ANGVIK said her understanding is that the entire remote parcel
program was repealed in 1983 and this bill is designed to pick up
the pieces that were left over. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the remote
parcel program was combined with the homestead program in 1983, but
there was still a staking and location program unless it was
changed later. MS. ANGVIK commented that people are staking the
parcels they are purchasing right now. They have 90 days to stake
it from the time they say they are going to buy it. She thought
that was the homesite program.
MS. FISHER said she thought the staking provisions were taken out
because people were going in and staking over survey lines that
were already there and it was, therefore, redundant. She didn't
know if there was a program of random staking.
MS. ANGVIK said she would get that information for the committee.
MR. ROGERS referenced the sectional analysis that says the remote
parcel program was repealed in 1983, effective 1984, but the
program would be alive until it leaves the year 2016 to accommodate
the 20-year purchasing contracts.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was involved at the time and they moved
the remote parcel program into the homesteading program where you
could do basically the same things. The remote parcel program was
purchase and the homestead program was sweat equity. They were
both 40 acre parcels in large areas that were laid out by the
State. The only difference was the method of payment, so the
provisions of the remote parcel program carried forward however
long that homestead program stayed. The homestead program was
always confused with homestead method of payment on a whole bunch
or other things that DNR was doing. He didn't know what was left.
MS. ANGVIK said she would get that information for the committee.
She explained currently they have land sales in public information
offices in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. These are the places
where state-wide offerings were staffed the last time they had one
and she thought section 15 was a reflection of that fact.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that section 16 required the bidder to be
present and came from the same interests that wanted as much local
preference as they could get in the way the sales came out. MS.
ANGVIK said she understood that requirement to be ruled
unconstitutional in a case called "Chambers" which allowed agents
to represent bidders who didn't have to be there.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced an at ease from 5:38 p.m. - 5:40 p.m.
Number 282
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he agreed with the first deletion in section
17 regarding the commissioner consulting with the assessor of a
municipality before determining the purchase price because other
provisions require an appraisal, and the second deletion he thought
referred to the Chambers case again. He said the legislature had
tried to make it very difficult for people who weren't there to get
land.
Number 339
MS. ANGVIK explained regarding section 18 that the State had a hard
time determining interest on contracts when allowing people to
borrow money. The methodology that was selected was from a federal
land bank farm credit district. What replaces that is whatever the
current prevailing rate is plus four points, because they don't do
credit checks. MR. ROGERS pointed out that the State could choose
to extend contracts up to 20 years, but had discretion in that
area.
MS. ANGVIK explained that section 21 corrects a 1984 error which
was restoring the original intent of the veteran's preference
auction law. It clarifies that although the law does not apply to
a lottery or homesite programs, a veteran's preference auction must
be held before restrictive residential lots could be sold. She
said the last time they had a sale it was by sealed bid. You apply
the veteran's preference after seeing the price.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the veteran's preference was supported by
this administration. MS. ANGVIK said she would have to find out.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said a veteran's preference used to be a cash
discount rather than a preference among the eventual winners.
MS. ANGVIK said that section 22 updates the agricultural preference
right law and defines the term "adjacent" instead of "approximate
vicinity" which was removed from Title 38 in 1984. CHAIRMAN
HALFORD said he agreed with that one and that section 23 was a
reference to that section.
MS. ANGVIK said section 24 allows upland owners to obtain a
noncompetitive shoreland lease and treats shoreland leases the same
as tideland and submerged land.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that section 25 was fine.
MR. ROGERS said that section 26 directly affects him as he is part
owner of shellfish business on an aquatic farm site. It allows
them to convert their permits to leases. People in the industry
wanted more certainty like leases versus permits, longer terms,
etc. MS. ANGVIK explained that currently there is a three year
permit that can evolve into a lease, but it also changes one of the
provisions of law that was struck down by the Supreme Court
recently of setting up planning districts. They couldn't provide
for a permit unless they had assessed the cumulative affects of
mariculture activity on the adjacent properties and they had to do
all that before they could even issue a permit. Section 26 takes
that requirement away and says they can do leases and they are not
required to do that kind of planning, but can do their regular plan
that they use in development of the leases.
MS. FISHER inserted that changing permits to leases has always been
the intent of the bill.
Number 432
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if anyone opposed this section. There were
no indications of any.
MS. ANGVIK said that section 27 restores surface lease sites after
leases terminate. This applies mostly to the North Slope oil
development. It also protects the State against liability of high
clean up costs by indicating that the owner of the lease has to be
responsible for cleaning up the sites. It provides that in the
case of residential leases, if a lease is terminated, that the
individual can get an appraisal of the improvements that have
occurred there. If they exceed $10,000 the State would return that
investment.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if "residential" was taken out in the last
version and asked the reason. MS. FISHER said that was a
recommendation of the department. MS. ANGVIK explained that
current law says that the ability to be able to recover investments
applies to all uses and this would restrict it to just being able
to recover expenses for residential uses. The intention of the
department is that a commercial user was usually able to amortize
the cost of their investment over the life of the lease, whereas a
homesteader is not intending to amortize the cost of his home over
the same period of time.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced a recess at 6:00 p.m. and called the
meeting back to order at 6:48 p.m.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the reason for this was because the State
wanted to change the use and terminate the lease from the State
side. MS. ANGVIK replied that it would be because the time has run
out or the individual has not fulfilled their requirements under
the terms of the lease.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD wanted to be sure this wasn't a special provision
that dealt with a State's interest in conversion of use in which
case he thought the State should pay someone for their investments.
MS. ANGVIK said that Senator Taylor did not agree with this
proposal last year because he thought that any investment should be
compensated.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked her to explain how this section works. MS.
ANGVIK explained that if a homesteader had a lease and was unable
to prove up or purchase it, the land would return to the State who
would then have an appraiser assess the value of the improvements
on the land. If the improvements exceeded $10,000, when the State
made that lease available to someone else, any increase over that
$10,000 would be returned to the lessee. She thought the most
problematic issues the State has faced in this area is with oil
leases.
SENATOR GREEN asked if the time periods were very firm because of
a lease ending in January and it's an underground tank. MS. ANGVIK
said if you are a lease holder, you know years in advance when your
lease ends, so you would know in advance if it were going to
expire, if you were going to renegotiate it, or if there was a
problem with the tank.
TAPE 97-33, SIDE B
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said the way it's written the commissioner can
extend the time any amount he wants to. He thought the reason the
tanks were in there is if they stay there any length of time, the
State would start to assume the liability for any clean up
problems.
MS. FISHER said that section 28 is a conforming amendment needed
due to repeal of the bonding requirement for the director of the
Division of Lands. COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said he thought all major
offices of the State are bonded under a general bond.
MS. ANGVIK said regarding section 29, there is a remote cabin
permit program which exists only in statute because it has never
been implemented. The intent is for the land to be used to build
a structure, if you could get a lease which would give you an
interest in holding of the land and is program is designed to do
that in remote areas of the State. The program has never been
implemented because a structure is not a temporary use of the land.
This allows people to have renewable five-year leases for cabins in
remote sites. At any time during a total of 10 years the lessee
could purchase the site after getting it appraised and surveyed,
just as in the former open-to-entry and remote parcel programs.
Number 552
SENATOR TORGERSON asked what law the squatters at Caribou Hills
were under. MS. ANGVIK responded that the Caribou Hills area is in
public ownership because there have been no transfers of land to
individuals there. So they are all trespassing.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD suggested deleting, "if the land is classified for
that purpose under the procedures required by AS 38.05.300 and
38.05.945." He said if you have something that's going to work and
then you find a land plan against it, at least it doesn't mandate
that it be done. He did not want to build barriers that they
couldn't cross when the department says there isn't money for the
land use plan effort.
MS. ANGVIK inserted that she had found the answer to another matter
regarding section 3 that they cannot dispose of an interest of land
by disposal if it hasn't had an area land use plan that has been
approved. The reason for that is that in 1987 the State of Alaska
lost a Supreme Court challenge on the question of whether or not we
had to have area land use plans in order to dispose of lands
(Chase). At that time the land use planning laws were adopted and
as a result of those laws and the Supreme Court interpretation,
they are required to do area land use planning before they can
dispose of lands. If you don't want to do that, you have to go
back to the land use planning section of Title 38 and change that.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD didn't want to prohibit the plans, but wanted to
avoid the mandate of the plans because there are areas where there
isn't a lot of interest but they could be offered for sale.
MS. ANGVIK emphasized there was a loophole which allows them to
hold an auction without a land use plan.
SENATOR TORGERSON said there were provisions in the Kenai plan that
weren't liked, so they didn't have a plan. He favored the
nomination process and land banks. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that
this repeals all that. He reminisced that the land bank actually
worked for a while in the '80s. He thought the positive pressure
was relieved and the negative pressure was growing from
municipalities that had to provide roads to places that were
disposed of.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said section 29 was workable, but he didn't agree
with the classification program. In this case the State does all
that the purchaser pays for: the survey, appraisal and platting.
The benefit is that the State choose surveyors that do it all the
same so it would be consistent. The disadvantage is if you say the
purchaser has to pay that out of pocket, you find that more people
don't do it. They just get their lease and build their cabin and
then lose their interest. Most rural surveys cost about $5,000, he
said.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that he agreed with language allowing the
lessee to purchase the remote recreational cabin site by having it
appraised in a manner acceptable to the department, but he had a
problem with the reimbursement on line 29, page 13. COMMISSIONER
SHIVELY explained that the difference anticipated under the sale
provision (a) is that the department would get to it in their time
and then charge people, but in (b) if during that period people
wanted to do it themselves and did it in an acceptable manner, they
could pay for it directly. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he liked that.
Number 400
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was concerned with fair market value and
asked at what time that is established. CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained
in previous programs it refereed to fair market value at the time
of entry. MS. ANGVIK said it is common for appraisers to do a
comparable of any specified year. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what the
lease fee was. He asked if the lease fee represents a reasonable
economic rent for a lease hold use. He also thought it was
legitimate to appraise at the time of entry. SENATOR TAYLOR said
he thought it was appropriate that the land be paid for at a fair
market value at the time of entry.
SENATOR GREEN pointed out that fair market value for the site
including work done was inconsistent with "at any time." CHAIRMAN
HALFORD said that needed to be fixed.
Number 370
MS. ANGVIK said that section 30 allows the State to be able to
provide non-profit corporations and tax-exempt organizations State
lands for public purposes. Right now they are restricted to
garbage dumps and cemeteries. This will allow them to convey lands
to for subdivision parcels that were originally set aside as open
lands. She said there are many governmentally unorganized areas of
the State where homeowners associations are capable of being
stewards of those resources.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how that worked. MS. ANGVIK said that an
organization applies to be able to have a piece of land, for
instance a picnic area, and they would be able to convey it to
them. SENATOR TAYLOR said he would like to see another phrase used
to instead of "public facility" that would expand the application.
MS. FISHER said this section says the commissioner needs to ensure
by regulation or deed restriction that the conveyances serve a
public purpose and are in the public interest. CHAIRMAN HALFORD
said he thought it had to be tax-exempt first in reference to page
14, line 27 - that it modifies all the categories and added that
that is limiting.
Number 298
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said section 31 was fine.
MS. ANGVIK said section 32 was requested by the Department of Law
and clarifies that the division may allow livestock grazing,
commercial berry picking or mushroom harvesting, and similar
minimal-value consumptive uses by issuing permits.
She said that section 33 and 34 goes along with the aquatic farming
proposed amendments. It would relieve them of the responsibility
of mandatory public hearings on each of those leases and it is the
only lease on which a mandatory public hearing is required.
MS. ANGVIK said section 36 gives them the opportunity to increase
an annual rental of $100 for the permit holders of a lottery until
they prove up instead of having a one-time charge.
MS. ANGVIK inserted here that she got more information in reference
to earlier questions. She said they started in the '60s with
simple auctions. In '68 it was changed to the open entry program
where they would go out and stake their parcel, generally between
5 and 20 acres, and come back, tell the department and it was
theirs. If you wanted, you could have it immediately surveyed and
after 10 years it was yours. In 1979 that was changed to the
remote parcel program - the difference being that the acreage went
from 5 - 20 to 40 acres. The process is the same. In 1983 it was
changed to the homestead program which still exists today. This
initially was to go out and stake it personally and it was subject
to borough platting authorities. After the boroughs decided that
homesteader staking was incompatible with land use plans associated
with boroughs, they required a survey. For two years the survey
was required of the homesteader and then the State started doing it
conveying by aliquot parts. This is when the disposal program was
changed from just going out there to the State actually laying out
exterior boundaries in subdivisions.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the homestead program still existed
outside of municipalities. MS. ANGVIK replied yes. Now people
stake, but they stake inside a lot that the State has subdivided.
She has been told that staking is still a requirement of law, but
it is stupid because they don't need to do it. In 1988 the
homesteading law was changed saying no survey was required, but the
boroughs said if they don't do the survey, the State must. And
that is how they got into disposing of land in those subdivisions.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what the requirements were for homesteads
outside of organized municipalities. MS. ANGVIK replied that you
could stake and if you surveyed it, it was yours in two years for
free. If you built a house within three years and lived on that
site for 27 months, it was yours for free. If you didn't do that,
you could build the house and after five years you could buy it at
fair market value. These are the steps today. The one big change
in the bill tonight is they are getting rid of the building the
house part of the homestead because it is extraordinarily expensive
for them to check if the houses were built.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there were lands still out there. MS.
ANGVIK replied yes, but it still needs to be staked and it's within
a subdivided parcel that the State subdivided and surveyed.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that was never the intention of the remote
parcel program or the homestead program that followed it. At one
point there was a requirement in statute that you couldn't stake
within a quarter mile of any other property. It was designed so
that people would not gather in groups and demand services.
MS. ANGVIK said that the lottery system exists today, as well as an
auction and they have small homesites which are five acres. If you
build a house and live in it, you get the land for free or you can
simply buy it.
MS. ANGVIK reviewed in 1995 they held a sale of 424 parcels all
over the State. Two hundred and thirty nine were sold. The rest
of them are still being sold over the counter today. Homestead
applications were given to 16,000 people; they received 4,100
applications back and the most popular homesteads were at the end
of Petersville Road near Denali and Jack Bay near Valdez.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that he wanted land to be made available for
disposal, and that it be accurately surveyed, and be accessible by
other State lands. COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said he was to get a
recommendation within the next few weeks about the next disposal.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what was generated in the '95 sale. MS.
ANGVIK said there were two answers. One is the five percent the
State got and the contracts. However, the State sold most of the
contracts in order to generate $25 million to put into the Mental
Health settlement.
TAPE 97-34, SIDE A
MS. ANGVIK said they have not created a new land offering in this
State for many years and this appraisal issue was one of the
reasons. Every single parcel had to be appraised with the actual
cost being $340,000 for three people doing it full time. They
actually brought in $22,000. So right now it's actually a break
even perspective with respect to the actual cash layout it took
them to do the sale. One of their concerns is that land disposals
be done right like in the best areas, where there's the highest
demand, and figure out what the State should do to prepare for it
and decide if they need to subdivide additional land. All of those
things are costly.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that the highest priority people had at
their State land disposal in an early analysis was good t.v.
reception.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what their current inventory was. COMMISSIONER
SHIVELY replied it was about 5,000 surveyed lots. A lot of the
land that people wanted has been selected by or conveyed to
municipalities. MS. ANGVIK said one million of the best acres went
to the Mental Health Trust, the next million went to the
University, and the next best land went to the municipalities.
Number 134
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't agree with section 37 saying that
homesite entry permits be offered at lottery. MS. ANGVIK responded
that lottery procedures was formerly a statutory requirement, but
a 1984 amendment left the connection between the lottery and the
homesite unclear. This provision says the department is required
to adopt regulations to do this. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the
original reason for this was there were few homesite parcels, which
was Oral Freeman's argument, and that's where they started the
stuff about the lottery being in the community and you have to be
present. This all came out of southeast Alaska's lack of available
land. He's not sure that offering all the homesite parcels by
lottery makes sense.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if those were paid for at fair market value
and what were the other variables. MS. ANGVIK said in the lottery
program you have the appraised value and that's the price you pay.
This auction says if there is more than one, everyone needs a
fighting chance.
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said, in response to a comment from Senator
Taylor, that there is a problem in being a public land State in
talking about homesites, oil leases, etc.. It's a lot different
than an individual owning it. Some of it is loaded on by ourselves
and a good part of it gets put on by the judicial system.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said sections 38 - 42 all deal with the homestead
program which still exists with staking and location and he didn't
think they should do that. He would rather fix it than abolish it.
This turns it into a pre-subdivided program. All the references
take out staking and it was never intend to apply to subdivided
parcels. There is no reason subdivided parcels can't be offered
under homestead provisions, but to repeal the other provisions for
opening other areas to homestead staking is a mistake.
MS. ANGVIK reiterated that the big thing in this section is that it
removes the requirement to build the house. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said
that was fine. She responded that the homestead program is still
alive and well; it does repeal all the remnants of the other ones
that are no longer in operation. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he knows
the homestead program is still operational, but there are no areas
open to it.
Number 278
MS. ANGVIK said it seemed the lynch pin in this is the survey and
if there's a way to require people to get the land surveyed, then
maybe they can go out there. She had been told by someone in the
Division of Land that what complicated it was in '88 the law was
amended to not require a survey. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how they
could buy it without a survey. MS. ANGVIK said they would buy
aliquot parts. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that was a legal description
and it takes a surveyor to find an aliquot part on the ground.
MS. FISHER said that the repealer a lot of people are interested in
is 38.09.050 (d) and (e) on page 19, line 29, removing the
restrictions on selling or subdividing land after it has been
conveyed to a homesteader. Right now there is a 10 year
restriction on being able to subdivide. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the
reason for that was to help people get land and not create little
communities demanding services and to avoid speculation. There's
also a restriction on alienation.
MS. ANGVIK said because of the 10-year prohibition the value of the
land is reduced by 50% right now. If this is repealed, the flip
side is a revenue stream to the State. It increases the value to
fair market value.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the restrictions applied to only the
homestead and the remote parcel program. MS. ANGVIK said the
repealer takes care of both of them.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the remote parcel alienation and subdivision
restrictions were part of a compromise that, in his opinion, got
more land available because it dealt with the fear that some people
were opposed to any disposal in their areas and opposed to creating
any new communities.
Number 419
MS. ANGVIK said section 45 authorizes railroad, highway, and
utility line rights-of-way within Chugach State Park necessitated
by the Seward Highway relocation project at Bird Point between
Anchorage and Girdwood.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said section 46 was fine and asked if anyone
objected to changing the time before this takes place from 90 to
120 days. No one objected.
MS. ANGVIK explained that section 47 adds a savings clause
protecting homesite entry permits (and subsequent patents) granted
by lottery after July 6, 1984 which was the effective date of an
amendment that dropped a reference to the lottery statute, leaving
no statutory guidance on how to issue homesite entry permits.
MS. ANGVIK said section 48 specifies the interest rate of prime
plus four for new contracts. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that they
entered into a lease agreement that went into a purchase agreement
based on a statutory interest rate that was in effect at the time
they made entry. And this is saying the new contract they are
going to get is different than the one that started the process
when they made their entry. He thought entry was a commitment to
contract even though it wasn't the initial contract.
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY explained that a statutory rate was based on
a floating rate. MS. FISHER added that the reason this section was
put in was so that people wouldn't come in to renegotiate their
contracts to a lower rate which would cost DNR too much.
MS. FISHER said section 50, the retroactive section, was put in
because of navigability claims. MS. ANGVIK said that the first
part lifts the six-year statute of limitations. So section 50 says
we get to go back to the beginning with respect to the federal
government on navigability.
Number 500
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they would go through section by section for
a quick review of the changes. He said that sections 1 and 2 are
fine. Section 3 is amended to say "must include, but are not
limited to." MS. ANGVIK commented that their attorney said if they
use those words they are in the middle of the Chase case all over
again. The issue of whether or not you have to use land use plans
for disposals was decided by the Supreme Court. CHAIRMAN HALFORD
responded that then you have to change the enabling legislation and
asked what that would take. MS. ANGVIK replied that would take the
planning section which is 38.04.065. MS. FISHER suggested saying
"disposals may include" or leave the drafter the ability to
determine the best way to deal with it. Discussion of the Chase
case ensued. COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said he didn't know why DNR
couldn't be exempted from the planning requirement for certain
disposals.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said section 4 and 5 were fine. Section 6 on line
30 changed "may" to "shall."
TAPE 97-34, SIDE B
Section 7 is deleted. MS. FISHER asked if the committee wanted all
the staking sections removed. CHAIRMAN HALFORD indicated yes. MS.
ANGVIK asked if he wanted to stake subdivided lands. CHAIRMAN
HALFORD said he wanted that to only apply to subdivided lands and
not change anything else.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said sections 8 and 9 were fine. Repeal section
10, all of 38.04.021, and section 11. Section 12 was deleted.
Section 13 was o.k.
Number 498
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said to delete section 14. Sections 15, 16, 17,
18, and 19 were fine. SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't agree with the
interest rates in section 20 and asked if they could use prime plus
2. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that was too cheap. SENATOR LEMAN asked
what the market rate was. COMMISSIONER SHIVELY responded that it's
impossible to finance raw land at a bank. So he didn't think these
interest rates were out of line, at all. They decided on prime
plus 3 percent instead of 4 percent. MS. ANGVIK reminded them that
there were no credit checks.
MS. ANGVIK said there was no veteran's program today and that is
because the way the statute is written there is no way to give
preference. Language in section 21 says if we're going to have a
preference for veterans, we would have to hold a sale to which only
veterans could come and allows them to do that. She explained that
the reason it does that is that in 1984 the law did not apply to
the lottery, homesite or homestead programs. This allows that to
occur at an auction. There was no objection to section 21.
Sections 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 were fine. In section 27 CHAIRMAN
HALFORD said he would move below-ground tanks into the longer
category or at least to 60 days because that's existing law. There
was no objection to that.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that section 28 was fine. He suggested
deleting, "if the land is classified for that purpose under the
procedures required by 38.05.300 and 38.05.945." in section 29.
SENATOR TAYLOR said they should take out "dispersed populations."
COMMISSIONER SHIVELY added that dispersed populations is slightly
redundant because they say remote recreational cabin sites, etc.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said to delete the rest of the sentence after
"sites" on page 13, line 26.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that "at time of entry" needs to be added on to
"fair market value" on page 13, line 29 and page 14, line 8
(section 29). There were no objections.
Sections 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 were fine.
MS. ANGVIK said she did not think they wanted to let the staking
issue be involved in section 38. This section says they can get
land by lottery. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the guts of this amendment
is to delete the old Oral Freeman language that you've got to do it
close to home.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said section 39 was deleted. MS. ANGVIK aske
they could still charge the fee on page 18, lines 11 and 12.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they would go from $5 to $10, not $20, but
they are restoring (4) and (5).
Number 247
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was inclined to delete section 40 because
it is in conflict with the staking. MS. ANGVIK said the big thing
was the houses on page 19, paragraph (3). It was decided to delete
that paragraph.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was any requirement to live on the
land. MS. ANGVIK replied that you could do option 1 which is live
on the land, pay for the survey and platting, and.... CHAIRMAN
HALFORD said he was uncomfortable with that because he thought they
would be eliminating the old program. MR. ROGERS said this related
to the broader question of kind of fixing this program to cover his
concerns. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the only thing he agreed to in
section 40 is elimination of the habitable dwelling requirement -
none of the additions and none of the other deletions because he
thought they were in conflict with all the other existing statutes.
There were no objections to that.
Section 41 was fine. MS. ANGVIK added that nothing prevents them
from residing in a temporary dwelling. CHAIRMAN HALFORD emphasized
they didn't care what they lived in anymore.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what section 42 does. MS. ANGVIK answered
that it was a new section that affects remote parcel programs.
This section would prohibit the department from imposing conditions
on new remote parcel purchase contracts. This is a repealer they
were talking about.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the 38.09. sections needed to be reviewed
because he didn't want the entire homestead program to be repealed.
MS. ANGVIK replied that 38.09.050 were just done - where the people
don't have the restriction of not being able to subdivide the land.
38.09.050 (d) and (e) say they can subdivide and sell it.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that they had five repealers, plus the three
on mariculture.
MR. ROGERS asked about the other repealers. MS. FISHER explained
that 38.08.090 is unnecessary because of 43. It is a disclaimer of
intent to provide services. MR. ROGERS asked about the 38.04
repealers. MS. FISHER said those all go with the land disposal
bank. MS. ANGVIK added that 38.05.057 repeals the down payments at
land lotteries. She didn't know why that was in there. She said
that 38.05.079 eliminated the remote cabin permit program.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that could go because they replaced it.
Section 45 was fine. Section 46 was aquatic farming. MS. ANGVIK
said she would like to add a couple of words to say that there are
people who have applied for renewal and have been approved, but
they haven't received their permit yet on the day the Supreme Court
ruled. And this saves them. The other people who had applied for
a new one are approved, but on the day the court ruled, they didn't
have a piece of paper that said they were.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said section 47 was fine. Section 48 was changed
to prime plus 3 percent.
MS. ANGVIK said that section 49 allows the department to adopt
regulations in advance of the bill's effective date, but doesn't
take effect until July 1.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that section 50 was a 30-year retroactive
clause. SENATOR TAYLOR said that sets a new record for reach. MS.
ANGVIK said it was constitutionally allowable.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was a question on the other part of
the permitees. MS. FISHER said she talked to the legislative
drafter, Mr. Luckhaupt, and he still needed to talk to the AG's
office because they are trying to give permit holders preference in
order to get the lease under the bill, but there's the problem with
when you grant a final decision, how do you give them a permit that
no longer exists.
Number 49
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked about the fiscal note. MS. ANGVIK said it
was a positive $93,000. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said there was a change
in allowing the increase from $5 to $10, not $20. MS. ANGVIK said
she didn't think that was calculated in the fiscal note, anyhow.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt a CS incorporating the amendments
referenced so far. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|