Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/18/1995 01:03 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 18, 1995
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Co-Chair
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Jerry Mackie
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HB 272: "An Act relating to municipal taxation of motor
vehicles; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 176: "An Act relating to errors in surveys of land."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 294: "An Act relating to the procurement of construction
contracts for village safe water and hygienic sewage
disposal facilities and to contributions by the users
of the facilities."
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 262: "An Act relating to the human services community
matching grant program; and providing for an effective
date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HANLEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 507
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4939
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 272
JIM COLBERG, Assemblyman
Mat-Su Borough
P.O. Box 336
Palmer, AK 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-4406
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 272
JAY DELANEY, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
5700 E. Tudor
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone: (907) 269-5559
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 272
CHARLES MCKEE
P.O. Box 143452
Anchorage, AK 99514
Telephone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 272 and HB 176
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator
Municipality of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519
Telephone: (907) 786-8116
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 272
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
210 2nd Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1325
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 272
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 176
GEORGE NEWSHAM, Assistant Municipal Attorney
Municipality of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519
Telephone: (907) 343-4545
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 176
TOM KNOX, Municipal Surveyor
Municipality of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519
Telephone: (907) 786-8116
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 176
CRAIG SAVAGE, Surveyor
P.O. Box 520403
Big Lake, AK 99652
Telephone: (907) 272-5451
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 176
JOHN BENNETT, President
Alaska Society of Land Surveyors
3123 Penguin Lane
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 488-3814
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 176
JIM COLVER, President
Mountain Construction & Engineering
P.O. Box 100406
Anchorage, AK 99510
Telephone: (907) 561-7669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 176
PATRICK KALAN, Vice President
American Congress of Surveyors and Mapping
1041 Chena Ridge Road
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 479-2628
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 176
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 216
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 294
CINDY THOMAS
Alaska Native Health Board
1345 Rudakof Circle, Suite 206
Anchorage, AK 99508
Telephone: (907) 337-0028
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 294
BOB GILMAN
Gilco Construction
6251 Tuttle Place, Suite 104
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone: (907) 561-2155
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 294
LAMAR COTTEN, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
P.O. Box 190800
Juneau, AK 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 294
JULES WRIGHT
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8251, Ext. 3196
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 294
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 272
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL MOTOR VEHICLE TAX
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/22/95 852 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/22/95 852 (H) CRA, FINANCE
04/11/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/18/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 176
SHORT TITLE: ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/10/95 304 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 304 (H) COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS,
JUDICIARY
04/18/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 294
SHORT TITLE: BIDDING FOR VILLAGE WATER/SEWER FACILITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1026 (H) CRA, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
04/11/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/18/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 262
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN SERVICES COMMUNITY MATCHING GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,Therriault
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/17/95 778 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 778 (H) CRA, HESS, FIN
03/30/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/11/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/18/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-13, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR IVAN IVAN called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee to order at 1:03 p.m. He noted the members
present at the call to order were Representatives Ivan, Austerman,
Kott, Vezey and Elton. The agenda contained HB 272--Municipal
Motor Vehicle Tax, HB 176--Adjustments for Defective Surveys, HB
262--Human Services Community Matching Grants, and HB 294--Bidding
for Village Water/Sewer Facilities. He also noted that on
teleconference were Anchorage, Bethel, Dillingham, Fairbanks,
Kodiak, Mat-Su, Nome, Sand Point, and Kenai/Soldotna.
HB 272 - MUNICIPAL MOTOR VEHICLE TAX
Number 036
CO-CHAIR IVAN said the first bill to be heard was HB 272, sponsored
by Representative Hanley. Packets included a proposed amendment,
fiscal notes, sponsor statement and supporting documents. He
invited Representative Hanley to introduce HB 272
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HANLEY, sponsor, indicated that he had
introduced the bill to allow municipalities to increase or decrease
the municipal tax schedule currently set in statute. There is an
8 percent administrative fee that is taken out for the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) to handle the collections, and the rest of
the municipal fee is passed to the municipality. This is an option
for municipalities to increase or decrease the tax every two years
on motor vehicles. The Division of Motor Vehicles would collect
the tax at the time of registration of the vehicle and pass on the
tax to the municipalities, less the 8 percent administrative fee.
It is estimated that the additional fees would produced
approximately $500,000 to the state. Costs for the program include
changes to the computer program. The proposed amendment would
allow DPS to collect a one-time fee for any changes to the computer
system caused by a municipality's increased fee schedule. The
department anticipated it will require an additional minute of time
per transaction to handle this tax. The intent of the bill is to
give the municipalities the flexibility to get away from the
legislature's having to raise taxes for municipalities and allows
the DPS to collect a one-time charge to cover programming changes
to set up the fee.
Number 164
CO-CHAIR ALAN AUSTERMAN asked if in addition to the monies retained
under (e) of this section, which was the administrative fee, the
monies incurred and implemented referred to the one-time fee.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY indicated the reason for the amendment was to
clarify the intent of the legislature which was to provide for a
one-time fee to cover the programming changes in the tax schedule
in addition to the 8 percent fee. He noted that the 8 percent
administrative fee could not be changed.
Number 194
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN moved to adopt the amendment.
Number 196
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked if there were objections; hearing none, the
amendment was adopted. He then indicated there were people on
teleconference to testify on the bill. He recognized Mr. Jim
Colberg of the Mat-Su Borough.
Number 210
JIM COLBERG, Mat-Su Assembly member, testified via teleconference
in support of HB 272. He believed it was an extremely important
bill for Mat-Su. The borough is in need of taxes that spread the
burden fairly throughout the borough. They currently collect an
average of $11.40 each year per vehicle on 68,000 vehicles, which
is roughly $775,000. The state keeps $62,000 under the 8 percent.
Under the proposed legislation, if the borough could average $50
per vehicle, the borough could bring in $3.4 million and would net
the state $272,000. He didn't anticipate there would be a
substantial cost to the state to collect the increased amount. He
felt a tax like this would allow the borough to do away with an
onerous personal property tax and fairly tax vehicles at a
reasonable rate. He emphasized he felt this legislation was very
important.
Number 260
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if part of the increased fee would go to
road maintenance.
Number 270
MR. COLBERG indicated that he could not indicate where the
additional funds would go, but with a $4 million increase in
taxation for schools alone, it wouldn't begin to cover the costs
the borough foresees.
Number 276
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked for an explanation of the math involved
in increasing the motor vehicle tax again.
Number 283
MR. COLBERG reiterated that there were 68,000 motor vehicles in
Mat-Su. Out of the $35 registration fee paid, Mat-Su collects
$11.40 per vehicle, which results in $775,000; of that, $62,000
went to the state. At $50 per vehicle, Mat-Su would collect $3.4
million and the state would receive approximately $272,000.
Number 306
JAY DELANEY, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), stated his concerns were that the single table
tax schedule was easy to administer. With 13 different local
governments now participating, and a potential for others to
participate, he expressed reservation about a system that could
handle so many different tax rates. Another concern was that the
customers believe this is a state tax since the DPS collects it,
and as a result would get numerous complaints, comments and
questions which would increase the amount of time a counter person
would have to spend with each person registering a vehicle. In its
fiscal note, the DPS estimated an increase of one minute per
transaction as a result of this legislation. This would require an
additional seven positions in the budget, one accounting clerk, one
accounting technician and five counter people. The one accounting
technician would be required for FY 96; the others would not be
needed until FY 97. He anticipated the revenues generated would
more than offset the cost of changes required by the DPS. He
believed that many municipalities would take advantage of this tax.
Mr. Delaney indicated that of the 8 percent collected, the division
only received a portion of it. The rest goes into the general
fund.
Number 383
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN inquired whether the fees and the taxes are the
same for each municipality that the state collects.
Number 393
MR. DELANEY indicated that currently the tax was the same in each
municipality.
Number 397
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN then asked if the same dollar figure was
collected at each one of the locations.
Number 403
MR. DELANEY clarified that the tax table was the same. It varies
for the different year of the vehicle, but is the same for each of
the locations.
Number 407
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if the revised bill required a computer
update to accomplish.
Number 414
MR. DELANEY indicated the computer system would make the
calculation, resulting in substantial changes to the program to
enter the different tax tables for the different locations. The
one-time cost would cover this.
Number 427
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if in FY 96 and FY 97 seven new people
would be required.
Number 429
MR. DELANEY stated that one of the seven people was the accounting
technician that would be required in FY 96 to get the programs
going. The other positions were to handle the impact at the
counter. The department anticipates that each transaction would
require one extra minute to handle because of the customer
frustration at an increased tax. This equated to over 9,000 person
hours a year, resulting in the additional 6 positions.
Number 440
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if that was the total transactions
conducted and had the recent changes to get people to mail in their
registration worked.
Number 444
MR. DELANEY indicated that was the primary reason for using one
minute. They have reduced the number of individuals that come in
for the registration with the mailout program; however, only about
60 percent are using it.
Number 447
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked why on the fiscal note the biggest
impact was going to be in FY 97 when the legislation wouldn't take
effect until January 1997. Didn't that mean that only half of FY
97 would be affected.
Number 458
MR. DELANEY indicated that approximately six months was required to
train people for these counter positions. The funds for FY 97
would be considered in the FY 97 budget.
Number 470
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated that he was bothered by the fact
that not all the receipts from the 8 percent fee were not going to
the DPS. He inquired how much of the 8 percent was actually going
back to the department.
Number 490
MR. DELANEY stated that the department was currently collecting a
little over $500,000. It is difficult to say how much of that
particular program receipt goes back to the department because they
are all lumped into one. In the past, when it was broken out, the
department was authorized to use approximately $250,000, which goes
to fund the accounting section. However, the department has
additional costs in the collection areas. Two hundred fifty
thousand dollars was appropriated but it costs substantially more
to collect the motor vehicle tax.
Number 512
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he continued to be bothered by the fact
that the state general fund gets the receipts because a
municipality has passed a tax.
Number 515
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN noted that there were a lot of taxes similar to
that. About 50 percent of the fisheries tax goes into the general
fund. He then asked Mr. Delaney where the seven positions would
be.
Number 522
MR. DELANEY noted that the positions would be in the higher traffic
areas, probably Anchorage, Fairbanks, Soldotna, Palmer, Juneau and
Ketchikan. It was dependant on how they could be moved around.
Number 525
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked how many field offices the department had.
Number 528
MR. DELANEY indicated the department currently had 21 field offices
with 13 commissioned agents.
Number 530
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if this was going to affect all offices.
Number 535
MR. DELANEY indicated that the impact would be throughout the
state, but they had to place the individuals where the impact was
the greatest.
Number 538
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked why Juneau would get additional help.
Number 540
MR. DELANEY stated that the high traffic offices would be looked at
based on size.
Number 542
CO-CHAIR IVAN indicated the next people to testify would be from
Anchorage. The first would be Mr. Charles McKee.
Number 550
CHARLES MCKEE, Anchorage, testified via teleconference and said he
was sleeping in a van that he could not change title to because he
did not have a driver's license. He opposed the municipality and
the department receiving more funds through taxation.
Number 578
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator, Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA), stated that the municipality supported HB 272 and
it was one of the highest legislative priorities. A $2 surcharge
would generate $350,000 and go a long way toward solving the
problem of abandoned cars in the MOA. He supported that tax as one
borne by the user and supported the idea that the municipality
should set its own tax rate.
Number 610
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League (AML),
explained that this bill had been adopted by the AML as part of its
platform and does create more flexibility on the part of
municipalities to take care of the problems in their communities by
spreading the cost fairly.
Number 630
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN moved that CSHB 272(CRA) with individual
recommendations and fiscal notes be passed out of the Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked if there were objections. Hearing none, the
bill moved from committee.
HB 176 - ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEY
Number 634
The next bill to be heard was HB 176. CO-CHAIR IVAN indicated
that the packets contained a proposed committee substitute, fiscal
note, sponsor statement and supporting documentation.
Representative Bunde was invited to introduce the bill.
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked for adoption of the committee substitute.
Number 649
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN moved that the committee substitute be adopted
for discussion purposes.
Number 650
CO-CHAIR IVAN indicated there was no objection and the committee
substitute was adopted. He noted that Representative Nicholia had
joined the committee.
Number 651
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated this legislation pertained to a
problem with survey in his district. The survey has been a problem
for people in that area for a long time. It is manifestly
defective. This results in no one having a clear title within the
subdivision and could not refinance or sell their property.
Individual property owners could bring a quiet title action against
surrounding lots; however, this is not a practical solution when
there are multi-owner, multi-lot problems and the outside markers
are so far off. HB 176 would allow a party to enjoin all property
owners of record after properly petitioning the court, a resolution
by the local government, and the creation of a special assessment
district to request a resurvey and replat of a manifestly defective
subdivision survey. This would result in changing individual lots
through a superior court action. The MOA has requested this
legislation to correct two manifestly defective surveys including
347 lots. While the changes are directed at an Anchorage
situation, they would also be available to solve similar situations
throughout the state. It was the sponsor's understanding that
there was a similar problem in Nome. The bill allows for a vote of
all affected property owners to determine if a resurvey of the
entire subdivision or subdivisions should occur. The majority must
concur to form a special assessment district. The municipality
then must pass a resolution supporting this action in the formation
of the assessment district. A complaint must be filed with court
including a statement of fact and all relevant information
surrounding the survey and the area in question. The MOA has
considerable area in these subdivisions and is offering some of
their land to resolve the problem.
TAPE 95-13, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE indicated that a subcommittee of the Alaska
Society of Professional Land Surveyors, working with the various
entities involved, concluded that when a subdivision survey is
manifestly defective, it cannot be resolved on a piecemeal basis
and had worked with the sponsor on the legislation.
Number 021
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked what the definition was of a manifestly
defective survey.
Number 032
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that referring to page 5, line 2, it
was when the entire subdivision was inaccurate.
Number 048
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if by definition any survey that didn't
include a rectangular survey system description or U.S. survey
description would be defective, including mineral surveys and
right-to-entry lands. He was concerned that there were a number of
legal surveys now that would not be if this definition was adopted.
Number 080
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE indicated that those things were not included.
Number 085
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY then read that defective surveys did not
include BLM rectangular surveys, U.S. surveys or state rectangular
plats.
Number 097
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked why there was such a difference between
the committee substitute and the original bill.
Number 110
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that it was the result of compromises
with the Society of Land Surveyors. It puts a limit on the time
available to address the issue and didn't put it in statutory
language. It is a short-term answer.
Number 122
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the Alaska Society of Professional
Land Surveyors endorsed the bill.
Number 128
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that it was his understanding that the
president of the society had expressed nonobjection. He did not
think there was strong support, however. He indicated that he had
worked with them, but the CS had not been taken before them.
Number 140
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt that in general they were moving away
from the buyer beware concept. These people did not buy what they
thought they were buying. He thought that the MOA throwing in land
could probably solve the problem.
Number 168
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE indicated that the people bought land that was
surveyed. The state of Alaska usually approves surveys through the
municipality. The municipality accepted the survey. The
individual buyer had reason to believe that the survey was valid.
The original surveyor did a lousy job and is no longer around.
This bill is an attempt to collectively solve the problem.
Number 194
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked where are the property owners, as far as
their title insurance goes; had there been any recourse through the
insurance company.
Number 204
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE indicated there was no recourse because they
were not able to get title insurance.
Number 209
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that title insurance was usually a
condition of closing. Was it Representative Bunde's understanding
that these property owners didn't have title insurance.
Number 211
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that was his understanding.
Number 215
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY indicated that the committee substitute was a
substantially changed version of the bill. He did appreciate the
sunset clause. He had not been able to find a similar statute in
any of the other 50 states. He asked if Representative Bunde was
aware of any.
Number 222
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE indicated he was not.
Number 228
GEORGE NEWSHAM, Assistant Municipal Attorney, Municipality of
Anchorage, agreed that the committee substitute was a significantly
changed bill which was a credit to the Alaska Society of
Professional Land Surveyors, particularly in the area of cost and
protection of private property rights. One area of improvement was
the establishment of an assessment district which requires a vote
of the majority of the property owners in the proposed district.
It also requires the official governing body to provide a
resolution in support of the act. Both provide a great deal of
protection for those people who do not want to participate.
Another issue is divorcing this bill from the slide bill which was
in last year's legislation. This was to try to keep as much
separateness and not try to amend the Earth Slide Relief Act.
Regarding the issue of title insurance, people are having
difficulty in financing their properties because lenders are
unwilling to lend on property which has an unworkable survey. The
MOA does own a substantial amount of property in the area. Even if
the MOA does offer some land, there is still the problem of the
unworkable plat. Therefore, they feel this is the way to solve the
problem.
Number 284
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked how many of the 347 plots are owned by
the municipality.
MR. NEWSHAM indicated there were approximately 20-30 lots.
Number 294
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if any of the property owners, after the
initial owners, purchased title insurance. Had anyone recovered
from the title insurance company.
Number 314
MR. NEWSHAM stated that some have title insurance, but he was
unaware of any claims made on the title insurance policies. Part
of the problem with a quiet title action is that it is hard to show
the damages when the original survey was so bad.
Number 323
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if he was saying that some of the
property owners had title insurance and wasn't title insurance
based on a legal description of a recorded subdivision in
Anchorage.
Number 328
MR. NEWSHAM indicated that the problem was that the survey was so
bad that there is more property being sold than is in the
subdivision. It is difficult to see what the title insurance was
going to do because the plat said you owned a lot or section in
that subdivision, but the survey was worthless.
Number 330
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he was still curious about why no one
had filed an action with the title insurance company. If they
insured the property, and then found out that the piece of property
didn't exist or can't be located, the policy holder's rights would
be upheld.
Number 333
MR. NEWSHAM indicated he was not aware of any claims.
Number 335
TOM KNOX, professional land surveyor, Municipal Surveyor with the
Municipality of Anchorage, stated that in the last nine years, at
least once a month a property owner contacted him from these areas
asking for an explanation of the problem. The bill is trying to
give the property owners within the boundary of the defective
survey subdivisions, an opportunity to resolve the location and
produce an accurate description of their property. The survey
affects the whole subdivision and, therefore, requires the whole
area to be resurveyed. He supported passage of the legislation.
Number 388
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Mr. Knox had discussed the issue with
other members of the Alaska Society of Land Surveyors and, if so,
would he summarize those discussions.
Number 410
MR. KNOX stated as a member of the society and listening to the
comments of John Bennett, the president of the society, he
understood that they support the concept of trying to resolve
survey issues addressed by the bill, but did not give complete
support because they had not seen the final version.
Number 420
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if one person could demand that their
property rights be upheld and could cause problems for all
involved.
Number 422
MR. KNOX stated that he couldn't address the constitutional issues,
but as far as Anchorage was concerned, Anchorage has changed its
ordinances to allow surveys to be a part of an assessment district
or an improvement that could be assessed. Safeguards are built in,
such as a majority of people who recognize the need for the
improvement be required to approve it and the minority would have
to go along with it. The right remains to challenge it in court.
Number 437
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if, as a surveyor, Mr. Knox could go in
and redivide and make all the property owners happy.
Number 443
MR. KNOX indicated he didn't know if he could answer the happiness
issue. He did know that the property corners in the two
subdivision were staked and would require retracing to establish.
Through the years, people have made improvements off their property
and those problems will come to light. That is why the court is
needed. There will be people who will be unhappy.
Number 464
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that on page 4, line 26, the bill
states, "this section does not affect the right of a person harmed
by a defective survey to recover damages from the defective survey
or limit the liability of the person who did the survey." It does
allow the issue to be addressed in court.
Number 471
CRAIG SAVAGE, land surveyor in Anchorage, past president of the
Alaska Society of Professional Land Surveyors, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, expressed concern with the bill and
thought it should be looked at carefully and slowly. One concern
was that there is no other example of this legislation in the U.S.
and wondered why that was. Another concern was regarding the
funding. He considered the special assessment district concept of
funding unfair, expensive and cumbersome. People who are satisfied
with their property lines should not have to fund others who are
not. The assessment will have to be grossly inflated to cover
unforeseen costs. People should have a way to solve their title
problems, but they should also fund those solutions. He suggested
a more appropriate remedy would be through modification of the
quiet title laws to allow for a class action suit.
Number 515
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that a majority of the people he had
heard from in the affected area supported redress. He agreed that
he didn't want to assess people for something that didn't provide
a benefit to them. He felt this legislation did improve the
quality of the subdivisions involved.
Number 531
JOHN BENNETT, President, Alaska Society of Professional Land
Surveyors (ASPLS), indicated they had put together a subcommittee
to review the legislation and offer assistance. Part of his
membership felt that resolution could be found in existing law,
individual rights could be trampled by the process, and there was
a fuzzy definition of what constituted a defective survey. Members
in favor saw it as the only rational solution to such a large scale
boundary and title problem, given the cost of dealing with it on a
lot-by-lot basis. Although a phone poll had resulted in a 6-6
split, he felt that the Alaska Society of Professional Land
Surveyors had to take a position. He stated the ASPLS was in
support of the general concept of the legislative solution,
although the support was weak. He indicated they hadn't seen the
Senate substitute which modified the approach a little bit. The
sunset provision and the complicated process made it more
acceptable.
Number 563
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he was uneasy about the lack of a
definition of defective survey and no definition of manifestly
defective survey. Would the society by willing to investigate the
definition.
Number 570
MR. BENNETT indicated the committee was working with Senator
Rieger's office in developing the definitions and would be willing
to look at it again.
Number 576
JIM COLVER, President, Mountain Construction & Engineering, felt
this was an isolated situation. He felt the legislation was
dealing with common law traditions which was that the physical
evidence holds, and once established and used over time,
established the boundaries. He thought that was the foundation of
boundary law. He felt one remedy was to replat sections of the
subdivision. If someone built a house where they thought their lot
was, create a lot around it. Land trades were also part of the
solution. In individual lot situations in Mat-Su, nonconforming
permits are issued, which might work in this situation. He was
hesitant to rewrite law to solve one subdivision's problems. He
also supported changes to the quiet title actions as a solution.
He felt this legislation was too encompassing.
Number 634
MR. MCKEE, Anchorage, elaborated on problems he has had with these
issues.
Number 668
PATRICK KALAN, Vice Chairman of the American Congress of Surveying
and Mapping, noted that this was a problem specific to Anchorage.
He preferred the legislation to be specific to Rabbit Creek
subdivision. He believed the surveying community was divided on
how to deal with this situation. He was concerned with setting a
precedent and didn't know of any other legislation similar to this.
He felt the committee substitute was an improvement and appreciated
the sunset clause. He hoped the committee would go slowly after
more consideration.
TAPE 95-14, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE summarized that this situation had been going
on for 20 years and we're in need of the state's assistance to
resolve the problem. It was a unique situation; however, redress
was necessary. If there were ways to do it from a private point of
view, they would have done so. This was a compromise.
Number 040
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if quiet title action had been pursued.
Number 062
MR. KNOX stated that no one had taken a quiet action to court as
far as he knew.
Number 080
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE indicated that while one person could get the
quiet title to their property, the problems involved the entire
subdivision.
Number 081
MR. KNOX stated that a class action would be necessary to resolve
the entire subdivision issue.
Number 089
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the municipality had considered using
its powers of eminent domain and take possession of the property
and become the sole owner and subdivide it as they saw fit.
Number 100
MR. KNOX indicated he felt it would be a bad idea for the MOA to
take the property because they didn't have accurate descriptions.
Number 113
CO-CHAIR IVAN inquired as to the wish of the committee regarding
the bill.
Number 115
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted that the bill had a further referral to
the Judiciary Committee and the committee substitute hadn't had as
much review as the original bill. He moved that CSHB 176(CRA) with
attached fiscal note be passed out with individual recommendations.
Number 126
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none,
CSHB 176(CRA) passed out of committee.
CO-CHAIR IVAN indicated that HB 262 would be held until Thursday,
April 20.
HB 294 - BIDDING FOR VILLAGE WATER/SEWER FACILITY
Number 152
CO-CHAIR IVAN said the next bill would be HB 294. He recognized
Representative Vezey, the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY, sponsor, stated that village safe water
projects were a very important capital improvement project that the
state has been involved in for a number of years. It is estimated
there is a $2.5 billion backlog on water/sewer programs in Alaska.
The current system that is used does not follow the state
procurement practices. He felt there was overwhelming evidence
that the state could save a substantial amount of money by using
competitive bidding.
Number 176
CO-CHAIR IVAN indicated that those on teleconference would be
testifying.
Number 178
CINDY THOMAS, Alaska Native Health Board, was concerned that there
were critical legal and statutory issues in the legislation. She
encourage the committee not to pass the legislation as written.
She indicated she was the coordinator of the Alaska Sanitation
Coalition and was speaking on behalf of them. One of her concerns
was that this legislation would remove some of the ability of the
community to make local decisions. Competitive bidding might
result in the loss of local hire and local training. Rural Alaska
has severe economic concerns, with a lack of cash economy, and
worried that this might remove the ability for the community to
control these programs. Many sanitation projects blend federal and
state money which had different requirements and this legislation
would complicate that further. She also submitted a resolution by
AFN urging repeal of any laws that prohibit local hire.
Number 249
BOB GILMAN, a general contractor representing the Associated
General Contractors of Alaska, said currently Public Health Service
(PHS) grants were supporting up to $8 million in projects. He was
a proponent of the competitive bid process. Large projects have
been administered by little villages with no experience at contract
administration and hiring consulting engineers at the direction of
the PHS. The cost of the projects are increased as a result.
There is no accountability or incentive for efficiency in labor,
methods or use of equipment. He felt the Associated General
Contractors had a good record for hiring locally. He supported the
competitive bid process.
Number 308
LAMAR COTTEN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community and
Regional Affairs (DCRA), stated the department opposed the bill.
He felt there were benefits to local hire and timing the projects
to community need. The projects also developed locals working on
the projects to become public works departments within the
community to care for the projects and developed the community
ownership idea. He reiterated that the department did not support
the legislation and runs counter to development in small
communities.
Number 358
JIM COLVER, President of Mountain Construction and Engineering,
indicated he had done rural Alaska projects and seen waste within
the communities. It is a jobs issue. He felt that framework
needed to be used to increase the functionability of good design
and good accountability by consultants. He recommended revamping
the entire village water and sewer structure. Competitive bidding
was an important component. New equipment is not needed for every
job. He suggested a certain percentage of the contract to
disadvantage businesses, a number of local hires required and
trained, if necessary. Local hire and reducing costs can be
incorporated.
Number 404
JULES WRIGHT, Tanana Chiefs Conference in Fairbanks, expressed his
opposition to the bill. It's taking away local control. Local
hire is very important. He was concerned about a conflict of
interest with the sponsor of the legislation. He supported making
the villages responsible to their projects.
Number 449
CO-CHAIR IVAN concluded the teleconference testimony and indicated
this bill would be held until April 20, along with HB 262 and HB
154.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 459
CO-CHAIR IVAN adjourned the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|