Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/10/2000 03:20 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 252-RS 2477 STATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted the committee has held one hearing on SB 252 and that a committee substitute (CS) has been proposed which is substantially shorter than the original bill. The CS deletes the entire listing and allows the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to add to its list. The most significant change to the CS is a provision that suspends, at the request of a municipality with platting authority, the requirement to record parcels of land of less than 41 acres. The result of that provision will be that the 40 acre parcels that many municipalities disposed of will not be recorded. The CS does not remove the existence or non-existence of RS 2477s. It also suspends the recording requirement in situations where a municipality has platting authority and alternative access and has smaller parcels on which it is difficult to locate an unsurveyed RS 2477. SENATOR MACKIE moved to change the number "40" to "41" on line 6, page 2 and to adopt the CS (Version 1 GS2004\H) as the working document of the committee. There being no objection, the motion carried. Number 1909 CHAIRMAN HALFORD proposed amending the title to read, "An Act relating to listing, survey and mapping of RS 2477 rights-of-way, maintaining records concerning RS 2477 rights- of-way, and suspending the recording requirement on parcels of less than 41 acres until surveyed, if requested by a municipality with platting authority." SENATOR TAYLOR moved the title change as a conceptual amendment to allow the legal drafters to craft the appropriate language. There being no objection, CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced a conceptual title change was adopted. CHAIRMAN HALFORD took teleconference testimony. MR. BOB LOEFFLER, Director of the Division of Mining, Land and Water, DNR, made the following comments. DNR believes that RS 2477s on private property should be recorded so that future purchasers of that property have notice that an encumbrance on the title exists. DNR is very concerned, however, with the provision in SB 252 requiring it to record encumbrances in places where none exists. The record over the years shows that people do not want an encumbrance recorded on a title when in fact the RS 2477 does not pass through their property. DNR can support the requirement to record within a municipality if the municipality does not object, but outside of municipalities there are many small lots, and given DNR's current level of data, DNR is not exactly sure where the trails are. Recording those parcels will be unfair to the private property owners. DNR hoped the bill would not require it to record parcels of less than 160 or 40 acres unless it can verify that the trail goes through that parcel. MR. LOEFFLER also informed committee members that the bill contains a deadline of one year for trails listed in legislation which is over one year old, therefore the deadline has already passed. In addition, eliminating the 12 trails from the bill that do not meet the requirements of a RS 2477 may lead people to think they are authorized to trespass. He said his main concern is the provision that requires DNR to record trails when it cannot verify that those trails exist. In response to Mr. Loeffler's concerns, CHAIRMAN HALFORD said with regard to the time lines, the bill does not amend the time lines in existing law; those time lines were not followed by DNR last year. Regarding DNR's main concern, the long term survey costs, those costs could amount to $100 million, so the short term answer is to accurately use GPS and other location systems. Use of those systems will prevent parcels of any significant size from being recorded on the wrong pieces of property. He said that although questions remain about small parcels outside of municipalities, he does not know how to resolve that without losing the notification provisions of the bill. He repeated that the bill does not create or extinguish any rights. It merely provides notice to the public in the best way possible short of spending $100 million. MR. LOEFFLER stated that regarding the use of GPS or other short- cut technologies to determine where trails are with respect to property boundaries, the more creative DNR can be, the better off everyone will be. He said he agrees on a philosophical level with what Chairman Halford is saying but he believes it is wrong to record on people's property until DNR knows that an encumbrance exists. CHAIRMAN HALFORD remarked that the requirement to record on a parcel that is not on the trail will force someone to do the research to prove otherwise. At least a potential buyer will know that research needs to be done. SENATOR MACKIE asked if DNR supports the changes in the CS. Number 2219 MR. LOEFFLER replied the only provision that DNR is concerned about is the one that requires it to record on small parcels outside of municipalities. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that requirement is in existing law. MR. LOEFFLER said that is correct. SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Loeffler if he supports the specific CS before the committee which does not require DNR to record on any parcels smaller than 40 acres. MR. LOEFFLER remarked that the previous version was neutral with respect to whether a parcel was inside or outside of a municipality. DNR does not like the provision that requires it to record parcels outside of a municipality but the other changes in the CS are of much less concern. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the issue is the obligation of notice versus the potential of giving a person a notice of encumbrance that will require that individual to prove it is on the wrong piece of ground. That action might be damaging to the person's emotional well being but he does not know what the answer is. He noted the issue deals with conflicting values that are both legitimate. SENATOR TAYLOR said the problem would be resolved had the State had an ongoing program of surveying RS 2477s and fighting for them. Now, none of this will be resolved until DNR uses a little common sense in the way it manages State lands, even if it just deals with one RS 2477 at a time. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted this is a Senate bill. He suggested, "If we took out the provision that said the 40 acres in the title, not in the bill, but that the 41 acre line only applies to municipalities with platting authority, our bill would still say that it applies inside municipalities with platting authority but the Administration could make their pitch to try to carry that to the unorganized areas or the smallest communities without platting authority to the other body. I don't know if there's a - it's not an area where there's an absolute right or wrong because you are dealing with people on both sides that have very legitimate concerns." SENATOR MACKIE said a case can be made either way. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he would not object to backing away from at least that part of the title and letting the bill go through the process to see what the collective wisdom of both houses is on that question. SENATORS GREEN and MACKIE felt that would be a reasoned approach. TAPE 00-22, SIDE B SENATOR MACKIE asked Mr. Loeffler his opinion of the Chairman's suggestion. MR. LOEFFLER said he would appreciate that opportunity and that he does understand that there are legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue. SENATOR MACKIE moved to delete the words, "if requested by a municipality with platting authority." SENATOR LINCOLN asked for clarification. CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that the text of the bill would remain the same but the title would be amended to delete the phrase, "if requested by a municipality with platting authority" to allow the House to debate that question and make that change. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted without objection, the conceptual title was amended. SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Loeffler if he feels that language is better. MR. LOEFFLER said he does. SENATOR TAYLOR moved CSSB 252(RES) to the next committee of referral with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried. With no further business to come before the committee, CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|