Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/28/1997 08:04 AM 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 28, 1997
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Al Kookesh
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to the sale or purchase of handicrafts on certain
premises; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 162(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to Statehood Act land selection conveyances to
boroughs and unified municipalities."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to municipal capital project matching grants for
a municipality organized under federal law as an Indian reserve;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 9 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE: BAN CRAFT BUYING ON LIQUOR PREMISES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NICHOLIA
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/97 509 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/97 509 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/23/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/28/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 38
SHORT TITLE: CONVEYANCE OF LAND SELECTIONS TO BOROUGHS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 37 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 37 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 37 (H) CRA, WTR, RESOURCES
04/23/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/23/97 (H) MINUTES(CRA)
04/28/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 9
SHORT TITLE: CAP PROJ MATCHING GRANT FOR INDIAN RESERV
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MACKIE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/97 16 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 16 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 16 (S) CRA, STA, FIN
03/07/97 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/07/97 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/10/97 652 (S) CRA RPT 2DP 2NR
03/10/97 652 (S) DP: MACKIE, PHILLIPS NR: DONLEY, WILKEN
03/10/97 652 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM, DCRA)
04/03/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/04/97 981 (S) STA RPT 4DP
04/04/97 981 (S) DP: GREEN, DUNCAN, MILLER, WARD
04/04/97 981 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM, DCRA)
04/18/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/18/97 1274 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 4NR
04/18/97 1274 (S) DP: SHARP, PHILLIPS, ADAMS
04/18/97 1274 (S) NR: PEARCE, PARNELL, TORGERSON, DONLEY
04/18/97 1274 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM, DCRA)
04/22/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/22/97 1385 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/22/97
04/22/97 1418 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/22/97 1418 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
04/22/97 1418 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 9
04/22/97 1419 (S) PASSED Y19 N- A1
04/22/97 1419 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/22/97 1433 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/23/97 1284 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/23/97 1284 (H) CRA, FINANCE
04/28/97 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KATTARYNA BENNETT, Researcher
to Representative Irene Nicholia
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4527
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 426
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3466
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 38.
WELLS WILLIAMS, Planning Director
City and Borough of Sitka
100 Lincoln Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-1824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 38.
BOB BRIGHT, Planning Director
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
344 Front Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 228-6610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 38.
JANE ANVIK, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
Telephone: (907) 269-8503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 38.
DICK MYLIUS, Chief
Resource Assessment and
Development Section
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 "C" Street, Suite 1130
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5947
Telephone: (907) 269-8532
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 38.
SENATOR JERRY MACKIE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 427
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4925
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 9.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-20, SIDE A
Number 015
CHAIRMAN IVAN IVAN called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Ogan, Sanders and Ryan.
Representatives Kookesh and Joule arrived at 8:06 a.m.
HB 162 - BAN CRAFT BUYING ON LIQUOR PREMISES
Number 050
CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated that the committee would consider HB 162,
"An Act relating to the sale or purchase of authentic Native
handicrafts on certain licensed premises; and providing for an
effective date," sponsored by Representative Nicholia. He
explained that this legislation was assigned to a subcommittee
chaired by Representative Jerry Sanders. He referred to a proposed
committee substitute labeled O-LS0434\E and said he would entertain
a motion to adopt the committee substitute for the purpose of
discussion.
Number 114
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS moved to adopt the committee
substitute as noted. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 144
KATTARYNA BENNETT, Researcher to Representative Irene Nicholia,
Alaska State Legislature, came forward to testify on HB 162. In
response to requests from the committee members and the
subcommittee, five changes were made to the bill. In Section 1, a
restriction was added on sale, purchase, or offer to sell or
purchase handicrafts in liquor stores, as well as taverns or bars.
This was also a request made by Doug Griffin of the Alcohol
Beverage Control (ABC) Board. The second change was the addition
of language to restrict other handicrafts, as well as Native
handicrafts. Also included was a definition of other handicrafts.
She encouraged the members of the committee to review the
definition to ensure it is acceptable.
MS. BENNETT continued that the third change was the addition of
language to clarify special events, such as Fur Rendezvous or other
similar activities, that may be unintentionally affected by this
legislation. As discussed, a lot of craft selling goes on at these
events which is a big part of these functions. Fourth, they
removed the language that exempted arenas or convention centers
that were owned by the state or a political subdivision of the
state. Finally, at the request of Legislative Legal the word
"knowingly" was added to clarify that a bar owner or employee, who
is not directly involved in a transaction, will not be held liable
for actions beyond the realm of his/her knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN stated that the bill has been improved,
but he still has a few problems with the fact that this was an
unenforceable law. He noted that it's illegal to sell drugs and
various other sundry items that routinely are sold in bars. He
said he understands the objectives of this legislation and thinks
it is a laudable goal.
Number 398
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN stated that he still had a problem with
making the person who owns an establishment responsible. He said
he doesn't know that anyone invites an individual into an
establishment to sell anything.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about a person who owns an establishment
and someone comes in to sell something, that person would be guilty
and they may have a license sanctioned or receive a fine of up to
$2,000.
Number 488
MS. BENNETT responded that this does not happen unless a bar owner
or employee is directly involved in the sale or transaction. It
would be a person who is the purchaser, seller or they are the
person who facilitates the buying or selling. The bar owner or
employee would not be liable if they weren't directly involved.
Ms. Bennett explained the word "knowingly" was added to further
clarify that they wouldn't be liable.
Number 601
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS moved and asked unanimous consent to move HB
162 out of committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, HB 162 was moved
out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee.
HB 38 - CONVEYANCE OF LAND SELECTIONS TO BOROUGHS
Number 640
CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated that the committee would consider HB 38,
"An Act relating to Statehood Act land selection conveyances to
boroughs and unified municipalities." He entertained a motion to
adopt a proposed committee substitute for HB 38, labeled O-
LS0233\E.
Number 668
REPRESENTATIVE AL KOOKESH made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute for the purpose of discussion.
Number 680
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, sponsor of HB 38, came before the
committee to testify. He said everyone realizes state revenues are
decreasing and one of the few assets the state has that could help
municipalities address long term economic needs is land. This is
one thing that the state is very rich in. This legislation would
allow, in AS 29.65.010, municipalities to select up to an
additional 50,000 acres of state land within their boundaries. He
said he thinks it is important to look at alternative ways to
increase the assets of municipalities, particularly since the state
is cutting back on programs such as revenue sharing and municipal
assistance. Also, it was his opinion that municipalities tend to
have a better track record than the state in getting lands out to
the public for housing, resource development and various other
economic activities. This is another reason why he introduced this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE added that the original version of the bill
was written around some of the parameters which were included in
the university lands bill. Through discussions with the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) and Legislative Legal Services, it was
basically decided that a much easier, much quicker approach would
be to add a new section, which is Section 1 in the committee
substitute, AS 29.65.035, to increase up to an additional 50,000
acres. There are a few issues which the committee might want to
consider, particularly, on page 1, line 9, "January 1, 2012," which
leaves the opening for selection to 15 years. He thought that
there were a few ways to look at this situation. The DNR thinks
like it might cast a cloud on title and slow down economic
development. On the other hand, given the protections that are
currently found in AS 29.65, this shouldn't have that much of an
effect in his opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE was concerned about giving the municipalities
the time to get raise the money because basically they'll be paying
for the conveyance. This would give them enough time to go through
an appropriate planning process to determine what state lands, if
any, they would like to add to their rolls.
Number 914
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if this was in addition to the 10 percent
of the land.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded, "VUU (vacant unappropriated
unreserved) land, yes."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "Brand new land?"
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded, "Yes."
Number 929
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted that when he was on "the local assembly"
they were allotted 112,000 acres and they had gotten rid of 6,000
in 28 years. They figured at that rate, it would be year 2300 by
the time they disposed of the land they presently possess. They
resisted mightily and enough people got together and they forced an
auction of some 40 acre parcels, which will still take forever. He
said it is his understanding is that this land grant entitlement
was originally set up for newly incorporated municipalities to sell
the land, get their money and start their government, but just
about every municipality that he's aware of has held onto the land.
He asked if there were any provisions in the bill which would force
them to put this land up for auction.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded, "Initially there has been
provisions that would require the municipality, in the first bill,
in discussing with DNR -- and some of the comments I heard from
various municipalities there was some concerns raised, the concern
raised with DNR that once they conveyed the land, I had established
a time line that if that land had not been made available or put
into productivity in an economically productive manner at some
point in time in the future that it would revert back to the state.
DNR didn't want to go through the paperwork and the headache. And
the municipalities were concerned that sometimes it takes a little
bit to get those lands put into process and moved through." He
said that he would not be opposed to other suggestions about how
they can ensure that this land would be put into productive use as
soon as possible. Municipalities do better, albeit maybe not as
good as they should, but they do better than the state.
Number 1088
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that he liked the idea in the original
version of the bill regarding a time line.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded that this would require establishing
a procedure by which that land would revert back to the state.
This will probably add additional administrative costs. He
suggested that maybe as part of this reverting of lands back to the
state, that the municipalities would have to bear the burden of
this cost, as well as the conveyance.
Number 1135
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN added that any land that's abandoned
automatically reverted to the government through the process of
condemnation. Perhaps this would be a smooth way to take care of
this situation. He also wondered who would be entitled to this
land, as far as organized municipalities. He said he doesn't think
that Anchorage, as a municipality, had any available lands to
acquire. He wondered if there would be some entities who might be
winners and losers because there's no room to expand.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that this was a very good question. He
said, "From my point of view, if the state has land in these
municipalities maybe we need to look at getting rid of it, if the
state does not have land in those municipalities or does not have
50,000 acres then basically there would be no benefits to that
municipality."
Number 1215
CHAIRMAN IVAN noted that he was not familiar with what would happen
to the conveyance procedure if this bill was approved and the
borough decided to collect an additional 50,000 acres. He said he
wonders if these selections are undertaken on a contiguous basis,
or could you make a selection way out in the country somewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded that this question related to an
interesting conversation he had with Legislative Legal Services.
He asked, "What if the municipality of Anchorage didn't have any
state land and wanted some in the Fairbanks North Star Borough?
Would this land become part of the municipality of Anchorage?" He
had hoped to side-step this whole situation, but stated that
provisions could be made within the bill to allow a municipality to
select land outside of its boundaries. He said that would not
necessarily give that municipality governmental powers over this
land. The land would be a commodity just like a truck owned by the
municipality.
Number 1326
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if this bill would give an opportunity to
the North Slope Borough to select Prudhoe Bay.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded that Prudhoe Bay would have to be a
vacant, unallocated, unreserved lot. The definition of VUU is
within AS 29.65.130 which defines that land that land has not been
set aside for resource development.
Number 1397
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that the city of Palmer didn't receive
any additional land because there was no state land within this
area. He was concerned about municipalities that could choose
lands not adjacent to their municipality. He requested that
Representative Brice address this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the lands they were referring to
are vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved. The definition of this
designation is Sec. 29.65.130.(10) and he read it for the committee
as follows:
"(10) vacant, unappropriated, unreserved land" means general grant
land as defined in (3) of this section, excluding minerals as
required by section 6(i) of the Alaska Statehood Act, that
(A) has not been set aside by statute for one or more particular
uses or purposes; (B) has not been approved for patent to a
municipality under this chapter or former AS 29.18.190 and
29.18.200; (C) is unclassified or, if classified under AS
38.05.300, is classified for agricultural, grazing, material,
public recreation, or settlement purposes, or is classified in
accordance with an agreement between a municipality and the state
providing for state management of land of the municipality; or
(D) was classified no earlier than September 1, 1983, as resource
management and is still classified as resource management under AS
38.05.300. (Section 17 ch. 74 SLA 1985; am Section 9 ch 34 SLA
1987)."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE offered that they could expand this definition
in the title of the bill. He said he was lead to believe that
those issues regarding resource development lands were set aside.
Number 1575
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Having not read 29.65.130 - and just
briefly heard it, what about the possibility of excluding real
developments, you know, like pipelines and a mining, the assets
that a mine has, the buildings, equipment, things like that."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated, "I see what you're getting at and,
quite frankly, that that is my purpose as well. It's hard to build
a subdivision on a mine." He added that basically this legislation
allows land to be circulated so municipalities can transfer it to
people. He noted that he would be very amenable to something along
these lines. He stated that most of these issues have been
addressed by putting the program in AS 29.65.
Number 1680
WELLS WILLIAMS, Planning Director, City and Borough of Sitka,
testified via teleconference from Sitka on HB 38. He stated that
he's the defacto land manager for the City and Borough of Sitka.
The City and Borough of Sitka is thoroughly supportive of HB 38.
This legislation would do a number of things for Sitka which are
consistent with the current tone of the legislative session. The
city and borough operates an aggressive land management program.
They acquire property and sell it for development for the express
purpose of encouraging the private sector to develop the property.
The proceeds of these sales go into the city and borough's
permanent fund and directly enables them to keep their property
taxes lower. There are pieces of property that the city and
borough would plan to select from the state of Alaska if this
legislation passes. He said they see these lands as having private
development potential which would allow them, through the
development of this land probably 10 to 20 years out, to maintain
stable property taxes in the face of declining revenues from the
state of Alaska.
MR. WILLIAMS stated that the city and borough worked very closely
with the Division of Lands in the Department of Natural Resources.
They are incredibly grateful to Andy Pekovich and his staff in the
DNR Southeast regional office for helping them go through this
selection process. As they've gone through this process, they've
been one of the leaders in paying some of the processing costs for
DNR to allow them to use their resources elsewhere. They are
perfectly happy to pay any of the processing costs for any lands
selected under this legislation. He said the city and borough sees
this program as helping to keep low property tax and to compensate
for lost state revenues.
Number 1829
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked how Sitka's permanent fund is set up.
MR. WILLIAMS responded that Sitka has a multi-million dollar
permanent fund. The bulk of the investments are currently in
bonds. Two years ago, the assembly allowed the municipality to
invest up to 20 percent of this permanent fund in equities. The
earnings of this permanent fund go directly to keeping property
taxes low. The earnings of the permanent fund allow them to
effectively keep their millage rate two mills lower than they
ordinarily would have. The entire earnings on an annual basis go
into the general fund. Any access to the principal of this fund
would require a vote of the people as part of their municipal
charter. The sale of land over the last few years has resulted in
$2 million additional dollars being put into the fund. The
interest and earnings off of this has allowed them to add more tax
relief. He noted the only monies that can be accessed without a
vote of the people is the earnings.
Number 1947
BOB BRIGHT, Planning Director, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, testified
via teleconference from Ketchikan on HB 38. He echoed Mr.
Williams' comments. He stated that when the legislation was
proposed it included only Section 6(b) lands. After reviewing the
committee substitute, it looks as though it does include also 6(a)
lands which would include lands in Southeast Alaska. He informed
the committee that Ketchikan also has an aggressive lands program
to turn borough lands into private lands. They have a land trust
fund in which the principal is preserved. The interest is spent to
improve the borough lands with infrastructure and to help get this
borough property into private hands.
Number 2007
JANE ANVIK, Director, Division of Land, Department of Natural
Resources, testified via teleconference from Anchorage on HB 38.
The Administration is supportive of the concept of increasing
distribution of state lands to municipalities. She indicted she
wasn't sure she had the most recent version of the bill. Ms. Anvik
said she has Version A, which does not incorporate Title 29 as the
methodology of ensuring the entitlement, but if this is what the
change involves, they'd be willing to work with the sponsor and
committee to ensure that additional lands would be made available
to municipalities if they used the regular program under Section
29.65.
MS. ANVIK made one cautionary note for consideration by the
committee in that the division has a great deal of land currently
owed to municipal governments. They are working steadfastly on
trying to provide the first entitlements to cities and boroughs
across the state. She said the division currently thinks that they
should fulfill their existing obligations to municipalities before
they process additional requests from boroughs that have already
received their entitlements. With this cautionary note, they are
supportive of the utilization of Title 29.65 as the methodology
which would allow them to use 6(a) and 6(b) lands within the
existing time frames that are set out in 29.65.
Number 2102
CHAIRMAN IVAN requested a status report on the current obligations
of conveyances that haven't been met.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what the aggregate of all the lands was
assuming this legislation would become law with 50,000 acres per
borough. He asked how much land would be given away.
Number 2130
MS. ANVIK responded there would be an additional 800,000 acres
available. The original entitlement for boroughs is 1.3 million
acres.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN questioned how much of the 1.3 million acres
has been conveyed.
Number 2153
MS. ANVIK stated that she could answer the question backwards by
stating that they still owe 600,000 acres. They have distributed
700,000 and owe 600,000.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there was some characterization of the
type of municipality that hasn't picked their land.
Number 2160
DICK MYLIUS, Chief, Resource Assessment and Development Section,
Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage on HB 38. He responded that
specifically the boroughs they owe a lot of land to Lake and
Peninsula Borough, Northwest Arctic Borough, Denali Borough,
Aleutians East Borough, the North Slope Borough and the Kenai
Peninsula Borough. He summed up by stating that it's mostly the
new boroughs that haven't received a lot of their lands.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked what amount of land has been sold or
transferred by the state to the various programs enacted over the
years, such as the homestead, open entry, recreation, mining
claims, et cetera.
Number 2252
MS. ANVIK responded that there are 700,000 acres that have gone out
to municipal governments. One million acres went to the mental
health settlement. Lands that have been conveyed to the university
and other settlements total 880,000 acres. Land for private,
residential or agricultural uses such as open entry, homestead, et
cetera, is another 700,000. She would provide the committee with
lists that outline the information. As a caveat, while they're
owed 105 million acres from the federal government, they have only
actually received patent to 40 million acres so far. They are
still in the process of negotiating with the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN referred to the 700,000 figure and asked if
that is land that has actually been conveyed or is it land that has
just been applied for or has the title actually passed to
individuals.
Number 2310
MS. ANVIK responded that this is land that's actually been
conveyed.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if there has ever been a situation where
there is a borough, and within the borough there's a municipality
that makes a claim and both entities compete for the claim.
Number 2338
MS. ANVIK responded that occasionally a situation happens where
there is a borough that is in competition with a city over the same
piece of land. The city would have first rights over the borough
in this situation.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that he didn't know if the following
would apply, but under AS 25.65.080 they talk about payment for
land deficiency. Under this section, there is a period of time for
selection and after July 1, 1980, the amount of land selected by
the municipality that's physically suitable for residential,
commercial and industrial purposes amounts to less than one-third,
per capita. For those purposes an unselected, remaining
entitlement shall, for the purposes of deficiency payment under
this subsection, be considered land physically suitable for this at
$1,000 an acre if they can't get it. He said if they open up the
new program, would it come under the statute for places like
Anchorage where there's no land to select because it's not within
their boroughs. Could they come back to the state and say, "Well
you guys didn't give us any land, so give us $5 million." He asked
if they would they be encumbered by this.
Number 2488
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE responded that in discussing this very issue
with Legislative Legal Services, they assured him that this would
not come under the land deficiency statutes.
MS. ANVIK stated that there were several communities for whom
50,000 acres is not possible since they don't own 50,000 within
their boundaries. The department requests that this be clarified
in this legislation in that they do not adopt a new payment for
land deficiency under this provision of this law. Some language
they suggested was that it could be up to 50,000 acres. This would
mean that the department wouldn't be required to give them 50,000
acres if they didn't have it.
Number 2449
CHAIRMAN IVAN stated that in the interest of acquiring additional
information regarding this legislation, the bill would be held
over.
TAPE 97-20, SIDE B
Number 001
CHAIRMAN IVAN requested the current status of municipalities that
have already taken care of their entitlements and other pertinent
information regarding this proposed legislation. He said he
doesn't want to add another layer to this already existing system.
He appointed Representative Ryan as a subcommittee chair to look at
this bill, do some work on it and bring it back before the full
committee. He also appointed Representatives Joule and Ogan to the
subcommittee.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN requested that the department provide the
committee with overlay maps to get a fair idea of what the state's
ownership is, the intended ownership, conveyances of the federal
government, et cetera.
Number 058
MS. ANVIK said she would be happy to provide these maps.
SB 9 - CAP PROJ MATCHING GRANT FOR INDIAN RESERV
Number 070
CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated that the committee would consider SB 9, "An
Act relating to municipal capital project matching grants for a
municipality organized under federal law as an Indian reserve; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 084
SENATOR JERRY MACKIE, sponsor of SB 9, came forward to explain the
legislation. He stated that SB 9 is a follow-up piece of
legislation from last year which passed the House unanimously. It
went through the committee process in the Senate, but it was one of
many bills that got lost last minute when they debated the budget
and ended up in special session. The legislation had no opposition
last year and doesn't this year.
SENATOR MACKIE continued that this was a straight forward and
simple bill. When the Hickel Administration instituted the Capitol
Matching Grant Program, it was set up with a definition that
participants had to be municipalities. A municipality would
receive a municipal cap under the matching grant. If a community
is unincorporated, they would receive an unincorporated one.
Number 118
SENATOR MACKIE said that there was every intention for Metlakatla
to be included in this program and they did receive grants until
last year. Senator Halford chaired the Finance Committee last year
and he thought, through a legal analysis, the definition of
"municipality" did not include Metlakatla since that community is
not defined as a municipality, but as the Metlakatla Indian
Reservation, organized under federal law. This bill adds into
statute that Metlakatla would qualify for a municipal capital
matching grant. This legislation doesn't allow them to receive an
unincorporated grant which, because of their status, they actually,
for a few years, qualified for both a municipal grant and an
unincorporated grant.
SENATOR MACKIE stated that one of the questions which came up last
year in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee related
to the insertion of "community organized as an Indian reserve." It
was asked what this meant in regards to Indian country. He said,
"This legislation does not because this only allows for a
specifically -- on page 1 of the bill, `an entity organized under
federal law as an Indian reserve that existed before enactment of
43 U.S.C. 1618(a) and is continued in existence under that
subsection is a municipality for purposes....'" Senator Mackie
said there is only one that qualifies under this and that is
Metlakatla and it doesn't open up Pandora's box.
Number 207
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked what type of monies this would entail and
are they portioned among the several communities on any type of
equality basis. He also asked how the grants are actually
procured.
SENATOR MACKIE responded that this legislation allows Metlakatla to
be treated the same as every other municipality, in the state, of
the same size. It's the Governor's Capital Matching Grant Program
where up to $25,000 is awarded to these communities. The
legislation would allow Metlakatla to participate in this program
without any preference given.
Number 239
CHAIRMAN IVAN noted that the committee heard the bill last year.
He said he thought it was a good bill and he wanted to see it move
forward.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN moved and asked unanimous consent to move SB 9
out of committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying zero fiscal note. Hearing no objection, SB 9 was
moved out the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 270
CHAIRMAN IVAN adjourned the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee at 8:58 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|