03/07/2024 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB5 | |
| HB317 | |
| SJR13 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 2024
8:02 a.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative CJ McCormick, Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe, Vice Chair
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Justin Ruffridge
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Donna Mears
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Thomas Baker
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 5
"An Act relating to convening the legislature in Anchorage;
relating to the regulation of lobbying; relating to annual
student guests of the legislature; relating to locations of
sessions of the legislature; relating to the Legislative Ethics
Act; relating to the relocation of functions of state
government; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 317
"An Act relating to the municipal tax exemption of farm use land
and structures on farm use land; requiring a vote in
municipalities that do not currently provide a general tax
exemption for structures used in farming activity; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 13
Encouraging the United States Congress and the President of the
United States to pass and sign legislation amending the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act to release certain land held in
trust back to affected Alaska Native village corporations.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 5
SHORT TITLE: HOLD LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS IN ANCHORAGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
01/19/23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/23
01/19/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/23 (H) CRA, STA, FIN
03/07/24 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 317
SHORT TITLE: FARM USE LAND/STRUCTURES: TAX EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CARPENTER
02/09/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/24 (H) CRA
03/07/24 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: SJR 13
SHORT TITLE: AMEND ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DUNBAR
01/26/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/24 (S) CRA
02/01/24 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/01/24 (S) Heard & Held
02/01/24 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/06/24 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/06/24 (S) Moved SJR 13 Out of Committee
02/06/24 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/07/24 (S) CRA RPT 2DP 1NR
02/07/24 (S) DP: DUNBAR, GRAY-JACKSON
02/07/24 (S) NR: BJORKMAN
02/14/24 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/14/24 (S) VERSION: SJR 13
02/15/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/24 (H) CRA
03/07/24 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 5, as the prime sponsor.
RYAN MCKEE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 5,
on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor.
BEN CARPENTER
Alaska State Representative
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 317, as the prime sponsor.
KENDRA BROUSSARD, Staff
Representative Ben Carpenter
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sectional analysis and
PowerPoint presentation for HB 317, on behalf of Representative
Carpenter, prime sponsor.
DONNA ARDUIN, Staff
Representative Ben Carpenter
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
317.
FORREST DUNBAR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 13, as the prime sponsor.
GREGG RENKES, Senior Vice President for Government Relations
Chenega Corporation
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on SJR 13.
MARJORIE MARY, President
Baan O Yeel Kon Corporation
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on SJR 13.
BENJAMIN MALLOTT, Vice President
Alaska Federation of Natives
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on SJR 13.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:11 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.
Representatives McKay, Ruffridge, Himschoot, Mears, McCabe, and
McCormick were present at the call to order.
HB 5-HOLD LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS IN ANCHORAGE
8:03:05 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 5, "An Act relating to convening the
legislature in Anchorage; relating to the regulation of
lobbying; relating to annual student guests of the legislature;
relating to locations of sessions of the legislature; relating
to the Legislative Ethics Act; relating to the relocation of
functions of state government; and providing for an effective
date."
8:03:15 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
8:03:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, presented HB 5. He shared the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
House bill 5 would bring the legislative session to a
place where most Alaskans could participate.
Currently, with the legislative session being held in
Juneau, it is incredibly expensive for a constituent
to participate in person. And while there are options
to view meetings online, moving the legislative
session to Anchorage would provide Alaskans with a way
to participate in the legislative process in person,
like is done in most other states.
In addition to making sessions more accessible to
Alaskans, moving the legislative session to Anchorage
would also help reduce the huge cost involved in
moving all 60 legislators and staff to and from Juneau
each year. Furthermore, with the session being held in
Anchorage, a good portion of those legislators and
staff would also not requiring housing. House Bill 5
will help bring down the cost of legislative session
while giving the public an opportunity to participate
in the legislative process without having to spend
large amounts of money.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER listed the financial benefits of holding
the legislative session in Anchorage, including per diem and
travel for legislators, constituents, and lobbyists.
8:08:57 AM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor
of HB 5, presented the sectional analysis [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1: AS 15.13.072(d) This would change the
location where a legislator or legislative employee
may not solicit or accept a contribution unless it
occurs in a place other than the Municipality of
Anchorage, replacing the Capital city, during regular
or special legislative session.
Section 2: AS 15.13.072(g) This would change the
location from the Capital city to Municipality of
Anchorage where a candidate or individual who incurs
election related expenses for election or reelection
to the office of the governor or lieutenant governor
may not solicit or accept contributions.
Section 3: AS 24.05.090 This would change the location
of the legislative session to convene in the
Municipality of Anchorage, not the Capital.
Section 4: AS 24.05.100(b) This would change the
location of a special session if the governor
designates a location other than the Municipality of
Anchorage.
Section 5: AS 24.10.030 This would change the location
for the chief clerk and senate secretary to serve
their duties at the location of the session until the
completion of their work relating to that session.
Section 6: AS 24.10.130(a) This would change the
location of the legislative session to the
Municipality of Anchorage when handling the member's
reimbursement of travel expenses from their place of
residence.
Section 7: AS 24.45.041(b) This would change a
lobbyist's requirement to provide the temporary
residential and business address in the location of
the session instead of the state capital.
Section 8: AS 24.45.041(e) This would change the
location where the lobbyist directory shall be made
available to the legislative chambers in the
Municipality of Anchorage.
Section 9: AS 24.50.010 This would change the location
where annual students guests may stay to the
Municipality of Anchorage.
Section 10: AS 24.50.040 This would change the
location of the essay contest to the location of the
session and adds that each legislative guest "hosted
under AS 24.50.010" to further define the annual
student guests.
Section 11: AS 24.60.030(a) This would change the
location where a legislator or legislative employee
may not solicit or benefit other than official
compensation or use public funds, facilities,
equipment, services, or other government asset or
resource for nonlegislative purposes in the primary
location of the session.
Section 12: AS 24.60.031(a) This would change the
location, from the capital city to Municipality of
Anchorage, where an employee may or may not solicit or
accept a contribution or promise or pledge to make a
contribution.
Section 13: AS 24.60.031(b) This would change the
location, from the capital city to Municipality of
Anchorage, where a legislator may or may not solicit
or accept a contribution or promise.
Section 14: AS 24.60.080(c) This would change the
location, from the capital city to Municipality of
Anchorage, in relation to gifts.
Section 15: AS 44.99.007 This would specify the
location where the governor shall declare proclamation
an emergency temporary location or locations for the
seat of government or for the session. Section 16: AS
44.06.050, 44.06.055, and 44.06.060 are repealed.
Section 17: sets an effective date.
8:13:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER reiterated the bill would only relocate
the legislative session, not move the capital city. He said he
did not understand the associated fiscal note and presumed that
staff could be re-hired in the Anchorage area.
CHAIR MCCORMICK sought questions from committee members.
8:14:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether any other state held the
legislative session in a city other than its capital.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered to follow up with the requested
information.
8:15:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY opined that the capital is already
effectively in Anchorage, as the governor and most commissioners
spend most of their time in Anchorage.
8:16:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the bill sponsor knew of any
other state capital that is inaccessible to constituents by
road.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER shared his belief that no other U.S.
capitals are inaccessible by road.
CHAIR MCCORMICK shared that he met a representative who lived in
the Los Angeles area who had to fly to Sacramento because of the
long drive.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER corrected his last statement, as the
capital of Hawaii is on an island. He recalled that citizens
had voted to move the capital more than once; however, it never
happened because of the expense. He asserted that the bill
would save money and make the legislators more accessible to
constituents during session.
8:17:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE said this was a highly requested topic
from his constituents. He suggested holding one half of the
two-year legislative session in Anchorage and the other half in
Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he had not considered that. He
pointed out that if half of session were to be held in Juneau,
the savings proposed in HB 5 would not materialize for the year
spent in Juneau. He said the major change would be the 40
support staff who work for the legislature that would need to
either relocate or the position would be filled by someone in
Anchorage.
8:21:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT opined that the playing field in Juneau
is level because all but three legislators are away from their
families. She said the city of Juneau has done a lot to
accommodate the legislature, adding that she would need to think
about this proposal further.
CHAIR MCCORMICK acknowledged the issue of equity and wondered
what he could do for the villages he represents who are left out
of the equation.
8:24:04 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that HB 5 would be held over.
HB 317-FARM USE LAND/STRUCTURES: TAX EXEMPTION
8:24:14 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 317, "An Act relating to the municipal tax
exemption of farm use land and structures on farm use land;
requiring a vote in municipalities that do not currently provide
a general tax exemption for structures used in farming activity;
and providing for an effective date."
8:24:51 AM
BEN CARPENTER, Alaska State Representative, prime sponsor,
presented HB 317. He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 317 is a proactive measure designed to
foster a favorable environment for agricultural growth
and sustainability in Alaska. By providing tax
incentives for farm structures and preserving farm use
land, we aim to incentivize farming practices,
stimulate economic activity, and strengthen our food
production systems.
Alaska is the largest U.S. state, yet it has one of
the smallest agricultural industries according to the
USDA. As such, the food supply does not yet meet
demand. Alaska relies heavily on imported food and is
thus more vulnerable to interruptions in the food
import supply chain. Currently, only 5% of the food
Alaskans consume is produced in Alaska.
House Bill 317 amends current statute giving
municipalities the authority to partially or fully
exempt farm structures used exclusively for farming
activities from taxation. This exemption applies to
structures engaged in various farming-related
functions, such as crop production, feed storage, and
dairy operations.
The Bill also ensures that farm use land and
structures dedicated to farming operations are
assessed based on their agricultural value, rather
than being subject to taxation as if used for non-
agricultural purposes. This provision safeguards the
integrity of agricultural land and supports its
continued use for farming activities.
Alaska statutes currently help with the cost of
farming, through limited property tax assessments and
local option tax exemptions. Alaska state law allows
farmland to be assessed at the farmland use rate,
which can be lower than the highest and best use tax
rate for the property. This helps encourage farmers to
keep their land in production, rather than selling it
or converting it for other uses. HB 317 removes all
current statutory requirements that operators have to
be commercial farmers, to receive the tax breaks.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared a personal anecdote about the
agricultural infrastructure he witnessed in South Korea. He
explained how property taxes increase when a structure, like a
greenhouse, is built on a residential lot. He said HB 317 would
attempt to incentivize the growth of agriculture by reducing the
tax burden on agriculture use.
8:30:03 AM
KENDRA BROUSSARD, Staff, Representative Ben Carpenter, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Carpenter, prime
sponsor of HB 317, presented the sectional analysis [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sections 1
Amends Property tax exemptions for farm use structure
by removing the requirement that the person engaged in
farming derive at least 10 percent of the person's
yearly gross income from farming.
Section 2
Amends farm use land assessment statute to add
structures for farm purposes.
Section 3
Amends farm use land assessment statute to remove
requirement for first time farmers to file intended
percentage of income, as that requirement is being
removed from law.
Section 4
Amends farm use land assessment statute by removing
the requirement that the person engaged in farming
derive at least 10 percent of the person's yearly
gross income from farming.
Section 5
Repeals the ability to waive, for crop failure, the 10
percent of income requirement, as that requirement is
being removed from law.
8:31:42 AM
MS. BROUSSARD directed attention to a PowerPoint presentation,
titled "Let's Grow, Alaska" [included in the committee packet].
She began on slide 2, "Proactive Measure," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Alaska is the largest U.S. state, yet it has one of
the smallest agricultural industries according to the
USDA. As such, the food supply does not yet meet
demand. Alaska relies heavily on imported food and is
thus more vulnerable to interruptions in the food
import supply chain. Currently, only 5% of the food
Alaskans consume is produced in Alaska.
House Bill 317 is a proactive measure designed to
foster a favorable environment for agricultural growth
and sustainability in Alaska. By providing tax
incentives for farm structures and preserving farm use
land, we aim to incentivize farming practices,
stimulate economic activity, and strengthen our food
production systems.
MS. BROUSSARD continued to slide 3, "Alaska Food Security and
Independence Task Force 2022," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Alaska's supply chain is vulnerable and in turn, our
food supply is unstable, of which 95% of purchased
foods are imported.
Extreme weather events and seasonality make rural
communities, far beyond the end of the road,
susceptible to weeks without food delivery and the
food that arrives often has a high spoilage rate due
to long travel time and poor storage conditions.
Additionally, by importing most of our food supplies,
around $2 billion is sent out of state each year.
Alaska is past due for activating a strategic approach
to creating a more inclusive, equitable, and resilient
food system for all.
8:33:20 AM
MS. BROUSSARD advanced to slide 4, "What's Hindering Alaska
Agriculture?" Slide 4 read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sustainability Challenges
Marketing Issues
Business Plans
Access to Affordable & Adequate Land
MS. BROUSSARD turned to slide 5, "Promising Efforts Underway,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Seaweed Supply
Farmers Markets and Food Hub Activity
Room For Growth
Current Economic Impact
8:33:40 AM
MS. BROUSSARD proceeded to slide 6, "Agriculture Tax Breaks in
the U.S.," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
You don't have to be a full-time farmer to take
advantage of a variety of agricultural tax breaks that
will help you with your property taxes. In some cases,
all you need is a piece of land that's not currently
being used. You can use the land to preserve timber,
for example, or put it to some kind of agricultural
use to save on property taxes.
The size of agricultural property tax exemptions
varies from state to state. Qualifications for
agricultural tax exemptions vary from state to state,
too. Some states base eligibility on the size of the
property, while others set a minimum dollar amount for
agricultural sales of goods produced on the property.
Many use a combination of gross sales and acreage
requirements. Grazing a single cow on your property
can be enough to trigger tax breaks in some places.
If you qualify, an agricultural tax exemption can
knock thousands off your property tax bill. Depending
on your state's rules, one way to execute this tax
strategy is to offer use of your land to a local
farmer. For example, you could allow a nearby farmer
to harvest hay on acres you're not using or rent your
land to a farmer. You don't necessarily have to do the
work yourself to claim the exemption for your
property.
8:35:04 AM
MS. BROUSSARD continued to slide 7, "Current Agriculture Tax
Breaks in Alaska," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
AS 29.45
Allows for commercial farmland to be assessed for
property tax purposes as farmland rather than if the
land was used for some other purpose.
AS 29.45
Allows municipalities to allow voters to approve
reduced tax rates for farm structures use for farming
activity.
8:35:34 AM
MS. BROUSSARD presented slides 8 and 9, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 317 ensure that not only farm use land, but
also structures dedicated to farming operations, are
assessed based on their agricultural value, rather
than being subject to taxation as if used for non-
agricultural purposes. This provision safeguards the
integrity of agricultural land and supports its
continued use for farming activities.
HB 317 also removes the requirement that the farm use
land or structures be used for commercial activities
to lower the barrier of entry for start-up farmers and
small operations. Which encourages growth in both
commercial farming and farming to feed your family and
community.
8:36:15 AM
MS. BROUSSARD concluded on slide 10, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Current statute gives municipalities the authority to
partially or fully exempt farm structures used
exclusively for farming activities from taxation. This
exemption applies to structures engaged in various
farming-related functions, such as crop production,
feed storage, and dairy operations.
HB 317 requires municipalities, who do not currently
give tax rate exemptions for farm use structures, to
place a partial or total tax exemption before their
voters in the next general election.
CHAIR MCCORMICK sought questions from committee members.
8:37:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS commented on the increased interest in
gardening and agriculture during the pandemic and expressed
concern that the bill is "too fine" on that point and "the
ability of the assessment to be able to fully capture that that
be beneficial."
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that currently, when a
greenhouse is added to a property, the assessor changes the
property value assessment because it's considered an improvement
to the land. If the bill were to pass, the value assessment on
greenhouses would be lowered and a municipal tax reduction would
be offered. He noted that current statute allows for the
reduction in tax rolls to be covered by state funds. Lowering
the tax burden through a reduction in property tax would
incentivize people to build greenhouses, he said.
8:41:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT sought to clarify the definition of
"agriculture" and whether growing a garden for personal
consumption would be included.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER clarified that the bill would not
change the statutory definition of "agriculture" or "agriculture
use."
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT expressed concern that anyone could
call a cultivated raspberry bush an agricultural endeavor to
reduce the property tax. She asked sought to verify that an
actual structure must be built to qualify for the tax break.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that if everyone started
growing raspberries, raspberries would no longer need to be
imported to Alaska, thereby decreasing the cost of out-of-state
food purchases.
8:44:58 AM
DONNA ARDUIN, Staff, Representative Ben Carpenter, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Carpenter, prime
sponsor of HB 317, defined farming activity and farm use as
raising and harvesting crops; feeding, breeding, managing
livestock; dairying; or any combination of these activities.
She further clarified that the assessor would still be
responsible for determining whether a raspberry bush, for
example, is truly farm use, which would make a difference.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT sought to confirm that the bill would
remove existing thresholds to be considered a farm.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER confirmed that the bill would remove
the dollar figure associated with an agricultural commercial
venture in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked for verification that the
statutory definition of "farming" would still need to be met by
growing crops, dairy, or livestock.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER agreed, adding that a claim of
"agriculture use" or "agriculture land" would still need to be
verified by an assessor.
8:47:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said she was concerned about the burden
that would be placed on municipal tax assessors. She asked why
the municipal vote in Section 6 of the bill would be required,
not optional.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that the requirement is
intended to prompt a conversation and incentivize local food
production.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT opined that the goal is worthy;
however, she felt uncomfortable with imposing a municipal
mandate. She mentioned the barrier to growing crops presented
by Alaska's climate.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER agreed that certain things do not grow
in Alaska and that food importation would never be entirely
replaced; however, any money saved by food production would be
good for local economy, he said.
8:52:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether a meat processing plant
on a chicken farm could apply for the tax incentive.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER reiterated that the bill would remove
the requirement that only commercial operations are eligible for
a tax reduction. Consequently, individuals, families, and
businesses would be treated the same by the assessor.
8:53:48 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK sought closing remarks from the bill sponsor.
8:54:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER stated that Alaska has the capacity to
grow more food, but he questioned whether the will is there. He
opined that by the government encouraging that behavior,
Alaskans would be healthier, stronger, and more resilient.
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that HB 317 would be held over.
8:54:43 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:54 p.m. to 8:57 p.m.
SJR 13-AMEND ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT
8:57:46 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the final order of business would
be SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 13, Encouraging the United States
Congress and the President of the United States to pass and sign
legislation amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to
release certain land held in trust back to affected Alaska
Native village corporations.
8:58:05 AM
FORREST DUNBAR, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor,
presented SJR 13. He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
SJR 13 supports the Alaska Native Village Municipal
Lands Restoration Act of 2023 introduced in S.2615 by
Senators Murkowski and Sullivan and H.R. 6489 by
Congresswoman Peltola in response to the desire of the
state of Alaska to end the Municipal Lands Trust
(MLT).
Rural communities across Alaska are facing challenges
due to the lack of affordable housing and limited
opportunities for economic and community development.
One of the contributing factors challenging many
communities is a legacy of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA).
When it was enacted, section 14 (c)(3) of ANCSA
required the reservation of lands allotted to Alaska
Native Village Corporations for future municipalities.
Today, those lands are held in trust by the state of
Alaska through the MLT. The architects of ANCSA did
not consider that many communities would not
incorporate under Alaska state law. Only 8 ANCSA
villages have formed a new municipality to date, the
last in 1995. Today, the MLT holds approximately
11,500 acres and the state of Alaska is forced by its
trust responsibility to manage these lands in way that
limits access and opportunity in communities.
SJR 13 expresses the Alaska State Legislature's
support for the Alaska Native Village Municipal Lands
Restoration Act of 2023, joining groups like the
Alaska Federation of Natives, Alaska Native Village
Corporation Association and State of Alaska in support
of dissolving the trust and returning lands to support
community development. I urge you to support SJR 13.
9:00:51 AM
GREGG RENKES, Senior Vice President for Government Relations,
Chenega Corporation, gave invited testimony during the hearing
on SJR 13. He said SJR 13, along with the governor's support,
would help Alaska's delegation push the [Alaska Native Village
Municipal Lands Restoration Act of 223] with the hope of it
th
becoming law by the end of the 118 United States Congress. The
federal legislation addresses a loose end and unintended
consequences of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
He highlighted Section 14(c)(3) of ANCSA and explained that for
the vast majority of villages, the land is still being managed
by the state Municipal Lands Trustee (MLT) Program. Decades
after the passage of ANCSA and many years after village
corporations turned over land, no new municipalities have been
created. In the 50 years that the state has administered the
federal program for nearly 50 years, only 8 ANCSA villages have
formed a new municipality. Perpetual management of these lands
in the state trust was not envisioned by the crafters of ANCSA.
He said it's time to return the land to these village
corporations so they can own and manage the land for the benefit
of their community members and shareholders. He noted the
difficulty of developing these lands due to restrictions imposed
by the state's fiduciary responsibility to a future, yet
unknown, municipality. He reported that 83 communities across
Alaska still have their land tied up in the MLT program. In
addition to the 83 communities, all village corporations and
communities that want to develop their lands but have never
participated in the land trust must deal with the cloud on
title. He explained that many buildable areas in Chenega that
could be future development sites fall within lands held by the
trust, undermining the corporation's right to self-determination
and self-governance. He asserted that Chenega should control
these lands, not the State of Alaska. Most critically, the MLT
program prevents Chanega from improving the community with
additional housing and creating economic opportunity for the
residents. He said the unintended consequences, such as the
failure of the land trust to provide a sunset provision, need to
be addressed to fulfill the promise of ANCSA and allow for
economic opportunity and housing in small communities across the
state.
9:09:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the state is supposed to be
managing lands held in the MLT program.
MR. RENKES said the state had taken responsibility as the
fiduciary to a future municipality not to allow any use of these
lands that would predetermine their uses by said municipality.
He said the safest legal path forward for the state is to allow
limited use of the lands to keep them intact for future use.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the state, as the fiduciary,
should be maintaining the land with proper forest management
practices.
MR. RENKES said proactive measures to protect the lands would be
part of the state's fiduciary responsibility; however, most of
the 11,550 acres in the trust are vacant lands in the centers of
small village communities.
9:14:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the original intent was
to make the land available for a "state function," such as a
courthouse.
MR. RENKES answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT inquired about the communities' various
levels of reconveyance and sought to confirm that [the federal
legislation] would remove state ownership and return the lands
to the communities.
MR. RENKES responded yes, regardless of partial or full re-
conveyance, or no conveyance, all village corporations would be
put be "put back on the same footing" in control of the lands in
these communities.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT noted the huge struggle to place Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) biologists and teachers in
remote places throughout the state. She asked whether the
opportunity to house a trooper in a bunk house would be lost if
the land is returned.
MR. RENKES said even now that is not possible because it
violates appropriate use of the land. However, housing is a
critical need, so returning land to the village corporation
could free up opportunity for workforce housing.
9:19:02 AM
MARJORIE MARY, President, Baan O Yeel Kon (BOYK) Corporation,
gave invited testimony during the hearing on SJR 13. She
provided a brief history of Rampart Village, a federally
recognized Tribe located on the banks of the Yukon River
approximately 120 air miles north of Fairbanks. She said the
formula provided in ANCSA Section 14(c)(3) has proved
problematic to the BOYK Corporation since the passage of the
law, and as a result, the corporation chose to provide those
lands via lease or by quitclaim deed to the Rampart Village
council for bonafide municipal use. She explained most
recently, the corporation attempted to support the council with
10 acres of land selected with the assistance of the Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for the development of a new
community landfill and obtained U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) grant funds that would build a road to the
approved site; however, the MLT program decided not to accept
the parcel. Consequently, with no other recourse, the
corporation transferred the deed via quitclaim directly to the
council, as well as a portion of land adjacent to the airport,
that would allow access to a gravel site and the development of
a new baseball park. She said while the BOYK corporation wishes
to comply with ANCSA's terms, they also have a duty to
shareholders and the community. She opined that the management
of the municipal trust has been a major impediment to rural
Alaska's economic development. She urged full consideration of
SJR 13. If the legislation passes, she said the corporation
would continue to work to fulfill land requirements of the Tribe
without the additional constraints and lackadaisical management
of the MLT program thwarting their growth.
9:24:42 AM
BENJAMIN MALLOTT, Vice President, Alaska Federation of Natives
(AFN), gave invited testimony during the hearing on SJR 13. He
said AFN has long supported Section 14(c)(3) legislation and
passed multiple resolutions urging congress to restore lands
conveyed under ANCSA. He said that having the state unified
with Alaska corporations and villages makes a big difference and
characterized SJR 13 as a big step forward.
CHAIR MCCORMICK invited questions from committee members.
9:27:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE shared his understanding that the
provision under Section 14(c)(3) was intended to incentivize
incorporation, which 8 communities have accomplished. He
questioned the barrier to other villages following suit.
SENATOR DUNBAR reiterated that the land was intended for
municipal facilities. He spoke to the difficulty of working
with the state to build housing, for example, which would spur
incorporation.
MR. RENKES said the capacity and cost of setting up municipal
government makes it "awkward" for small villages, so Tribes or
village corporations have taken over some of those
responsibilities.
9:30:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY referenced a sentence in the governor's
letter [included in the committee packet] and asked how SJR 13
would affect the pipeline.
SENATOR DUNBAR shared his belief that it would not affect the
pipeline and suggested that the governor's words may be a
request for a broader revision of ANCSA.
MR. RENKES said the issue referenced by Representative McKay has
nothing to do with Section 14(c)(3).
9:32:43 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK shared his belief that SJR 13 would address the
housing crisis in rural Alaska and for that reason, he intended
to move it forwarded as quickly as possible. He announced that
SJR 13 was held over.
9:33:28 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:33 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 5 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| HB 5 Version A.PDF |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |
| HB 317 Sectional Analysis - Version A.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| HB 317 Sponsor Statement - Version A.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| HB 317 Version A.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| SJR 13 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR 13 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR 13 MLT Presentation to SCRA 2023-04-20.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR 13 Support Documents Received by 1.30.2024.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR 13 Version A.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
SJR 13 |
| HB317 Presentation 3.7.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| HB 5 Letter of Opposition 5.2.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/7/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 5 |