Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/18/1998 03:40 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 204 - STATE LAND FOR MUNICIP. SPORT FACILITIES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 204 to be up for consideration and
asked for an at-ease for two minutes.
MS. MEL KROGSENG, Staff to Senator Taylor, sponsor, said our youth
are too often left unattended after school, at night, and on
weekends with little to do. Recreational and sports facilities in
communities offer an alternative to crime and other undesirable
activities. SB 204 proposes to give State land to municipalities
for development of sports and recreational facilities. This land
that is granted will not count against the local government
entitlement and make development of these facilities more
economically feasible for the communities. The bill contains a
reversionary provision which prohibits local governments from
selling the land. If they should decide not to use it for that
purpose, it would revert back to the State, but they may trade the
land for other land that might be more suitable in their area than
the available State land.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if Senator Taylor minded taking out the
reversionary clause because it gets complicated when you are trying
to exchange land.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered not at all. He added that the Department
wanted the clause. He thought the land should just be fee simple.
Number 526
SENATOR SHARP asked if this meant that the Fairbanks North Star
Borough could apply for the route of the Yukon Quest if the
Department of Natural Resources would grant that and not be counted
against their land selection.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he wouldn't mind. He didn't intend for there
to be limitations. There are a lot of activities out there. His
community is putting in an archery range.
SENATOR GREEN said it looks like this creates unfair competition to
some individual who might want to create a for-profit facility such
as a hockey rink or tennis facility.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered that wasn't the intent. Most individuals
do not put up soccer or little league fields.
SENATOR GREEN responded they would if they were given free land.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it is set up so that those individuals who have
land that the municipality could better use for that purpose could
receive land in exchange.
Number 495
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there was any size limitation to the land.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the discretion is left up to the Commissioner
of the DNR, but there is no limitation.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him to define municipality under this
scenario.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied that there would be home rule and second
class.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if all other unorganized boroughs would be
eligible for the same land.
MS. KROGSENG answered that it is her understanding that all
political subdivisions fall under the classification of
municipality (according the George Utermohle, Legislative Legal
Services).
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what a political subdivision meant.
MS. KROGSENG answered that she thought it meant you're incorporated
as an entity.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD added that a city and borough does not include
unincorporated communities.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there was a definition of what development
means. Is it planning or does there have to be a structure?
SENATOR TAYLOR answered that he planned on having it done by that
time. He didn't want cities applying for ball fields and then
never building them just so they could get additional land.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD clarified that taking out the reversionary
requirement doesn't mean the Commissioner can't enter into a
contractual obligation that gets performance within that four year
period.
MS. CAROL CAROLL, Director, Administrative Services, DNR, said they
have looked at the bill and there are a couple of differences with
the authority they already have to transfer lands or make grants to
municipalities or entities. Those two differences are the reverter
clause which they prefer not to be there and the other is that it
won't be applied to the municipal entitlement portion. The grants
that they make now for public purposes count against the entity's
municipal entitlement. She said that when DNR does this kind of
transfer, it is always for a public purpose and there was a
question that the land in this bill might be used for a private
facility. Other than those differences, this does duplicate the
authority DNR already has.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this was intended for private ownership.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered no, he had never thought of it.
SENATOR LEMAN said he wasn't so sure they should restrict this from
being a privately constructed facility even though it was on public
land. He thought they would want a municipality to have that
option.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't want to create something that was
in direct competition with a private entity, but he also agreed
with the other view that there are private management contracts
running public facilities. He wasn't sure he wanted to create a
preferential way to create a privately owned facility, even if it's
open to the public.
SENATOR LEMAN said he understood, but there are times when you may
have to pony up the land to make the economics work.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if they would contribute the land to a
private profit-making developer.
SENATOR GREEN said she thought Ms. Caroll said there was a
prohibition against it going to a for-profit entity.
MS. CAROLL responded that she was comparing what DNR's authorities
are right now to the bill as Senator Taylor had it. Usually DNR,
when they grant land, requires it to be for a public purpose and
for the most part it is in public ownership. There are leases that
private entities do have on State and municipal land.
SENATOR GREEN asked about the Sullivan Arena.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it is publicly owned and financed, but there
are management contracts.
SENATOR GREEN asked if there would be a prohibition against
management contracts.
MS. CAROLL said she would check on that.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there is a prohibition against any entities
being owned by private enterprise.
MS. CAROLL said she didn't think there was, but she would check on
that also.
Number 363
SENATOR TAYLOR moved on line 10 to delete the reversionary
statement. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
There was general discussion of lands for public purposes versus
private and SENATOR TAYLOR said that many cities are already fully
entitled and other cities are afraid if they take land under
current law for recreational purposes, they are restricting the
amount of land they may need for another commercial or industrial
purpose.
Number 291
SENATOR LEMAN moved on page 1, line 7 to delete "by the
municipality" and insert "for public purposes." Also in that same
amendment on page 2, line 1 delete "by the municipality." There
were no objections and it was so adopted.
SENATOR SHARP asked Ms. Caroll if she felt they were still
operating within the present parameters the Department wishes as
far as maintaining public ownership.
MS. CAROLL said it would still be their wish that it be out of the
municipality's land.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 204(RES)from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|