03/20/2002 01:05 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2002
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 422
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of fish and game to issue
complimentary sport fishing licenses and tags to September 11
emergency responders and their spouses; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 422(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 232
"An Act permitting state residents to purchase remote
recreational cabin sites."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 422
SHORT TITLE:SPORT FISH LICENSES FOR 9/11 RESPONDERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/02 2243 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2243 (H) RES, FIN
03/20/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 232
SHORT TITLE:REMOTE RECREATIONAL CABIN SITE SALES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/05/01 0860 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/05/01 0860 (H) RES, FIN
04/06/01 0890 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILSON
04/11/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/11/01 (H) <Bill Postponed>
04/20/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/20/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/23/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/23/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/01/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/01/02 (H) Heard & Held Subcommittee
assigned
02/01/02 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/02 2170 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
03/04/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/04/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/15/02 (H) <Bill Postponed to 3/18/02>
03/18/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/20/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN BROOKS, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 422; indicated the
department supports the bill and appreciates the effort and the
gesture to the rescue workers following the terrorist events of
September 11, 2001.
RUDY VETTER
P.O. Box 78343
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in agreement with HB 422 and HB
232; also spoke about the administrative code of 1962 in
relation to HB 232, and suggested language contained in the bill
would address issues pertaining to minerals, gas, and oil.
BOB LOEFFLER, Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1070
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3579
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that DNR has serious concerns
with HB 232, which fundamentally changes the philosophy of state
land sales and significantly increases the cost; suggested it
would duplicate an existing land disposal program.
JERALD STAMSEL, Pilot
1177 Shypoke Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 232; offered his
belief that people need more land.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Division of Support Services
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue, 5th floor
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions regarding
HB 232.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Scalzi,
Masek, Fate, Green, Kapsner, and McGuire were present at the
call to order. Representatives Kerttula, Stevens, and Chenault
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 422-SPORT FISH LICENSES FOR 9/11 RESPONDERS
[Contains discussion of SB 279, the companion bill]
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 422, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
fish and game to issue complimentary sport fishing licenses and
tags to September 11 emergency responders and their spouses; and
providing for an effective date."
[There was a motion to adopt HB 422 as the working document, but
it was already before the committee.]
Number 0100
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, speaking as sponsor of HB 422, offered the
following: On September 11 [2001] the United States experienced
an unprecedented attack within its borders. This attack was not
only on the United States, but also on the entire civilized
world. Citizens of more than 80 countries from around the world
died. Thus HB 422 authorizes the commissioner of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to issue up to 250
complimentary sport fishing licenses and salmon tags, as
appropriate, per year to firemen, police, and emergency medical
technicians (EMTs) who responded to the events on September 11,
2001, at the World Trade Center in New York and at the Pentagon
in Washington, D.C.; he specified that spouses are included. He
noted that this section would sunset December 31, 2003.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE characterized this bill as a small gift that
the State of Alaska could make to those brave men and women who
served the world so admirably in the shadow of these horrible
events. He pointed out that other states had made "life
contributions." For example, Iowa [donated] 1,500 quilts,
Louisiana [donated] 3 fire trucks; North Dakota [donated] 17
tons of macaroni and cheese; Texas [donated] 26,000 grapefruits;
Naples, Italy [donated] a 1-ton nativity scene; Hawaii [donated]
free vacations; California [donated] a Manhattan-shaped bonsai
forest; and Japan [donated] thousands of origami paper cranes,
representing peace and goodwill. Representative Fate asked,
"Mr. Chairman, is the State of Alaska to be outdone?" He
offered two amendments that would conform with amendments made
to the Senate companion bill [SB 279].
Number 0401
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt Amendment 1 [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 12, following "season":
Insert "before December 31, 2003,"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0495
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt Amendment 2 [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 10, following "who":
Insert ", at some time between September 11,
2001, and November 11, 2001, inclusive,"
Page 1, lines 11 - 12:
Delete "on September 11, 2001,"
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0646
KEVIN BROOKS, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, told the committee ADF&G
supports [HB 422] and appreciates the effort and the gesture to
the [rescue workers] during the terrible tragedies. He
indicated the department had been working to "clean up" language
in the [companion bill, SB 279]. Mr. Brooks pointed out that
the Senate committee substitute (CS) had removed [unnecessary]
language requiring the commissioner to adopt regulations. He
said [the department] doesn't currently draft regulations for
recreational licenses. Mr. Brooks recommended amending [HB 422]
to coincide with the Senate CS. In response to Representative
Fate, he said [ADF&G] appreciates the [effort towards
consistency], which will help in administering it efficiently.
Number 0755
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired about distribution of the
licenses.
MR. BROOKS explained that the department would distribute a
letter to police and fire departments in New York [City] and
Washington, D.C., and would set up a process so that someone in
a supervisory capacity would have to certify the [rescue
workers'] involvement with a written authorization. He added
that the [rescue workers] would have to apply for the [license
or tag] by mail or possibly online.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if [a further] amendment would be required
to be consistent with the companion bill.
MR. BROOKS turned attention to page 2, line 2, and suggested
striking, "The commissioner shall expeditiously adopt
regulations as may be necessary to efficiently administer the
issuance of licenses and tags under this section."
Number 0952
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the foregoing as Amendment
3. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 0980
MR. BROOKS, in response to Representative Chenault, said the
department envisions [issuing] a fishing license that would
include a king salmon tag, which is the only one being sold
through the centralized licensing agency for recreational
fishing. In further response, he indicated a king salmon [tag]
is required to fish in the state, regardless of the area. He
indicated it is estimated [about 100 licenses would be used],
and that the number of [licenses and tags in the bill] is to
keep it a "relatively small size."
Number 1129
RUDY VETTER testified briefly via teleconference. He told the
committee that he agreed with HB 422.
Number 1187
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to report CSHB 422 [HB 422, as amended] out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note; she requested unanimous consent.
There being no objection, CSHB 422(RES) was moved out of the
House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI called an at-ease from 1:20 p.m. to 1:22 p.m.
[He turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Masek.]
HB 232-REMOTE RECREATIONAL CABIN SITE SALES
Number 1223
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the final order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 232, "An Act permitting state residents to purchase remote
recreational cabin sites."
Number 1295
CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to list of changes included in the bill
packet and asked Representative Fate if those changes are
[incorporated in the new proposed committee substitute (CS)].
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, speaking as the sponsor of HB 232, answered
in the affirmative.
Number 1369
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to adopt the proposed CS, version
22-LS0791\T, Kurtz, 3/15/02, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version T was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated the subcommittee assigned at the
hearing on 2/01/02 had developed some solutions. He thanked the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and Bob Loeffler and
Carol Carroll specifically, for the fine work on the bill.
Mentioning the [complexity of the bill] and [disagreement with
the department], Representative Fate indicated the subcommittee
had tried to accommodate the nominating areas; that language was
not clear in the original version. He indicated one of the
biggest problems DNR had with the bill was [administration of
the program].
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that the "preference rights" issue
was retained in [Version T] but entails a individualized best
interest finding only on the preference part; the hope is that
the best interest finding could be applicable to a larger area.
For example, somebody who has been on that property three years
would have a preferential right. Or a miner who has been on the
property for years but who still doesn't own any of the surface
[rights] - only the subsurface rights - would have that
opportunity, as long as the miner has been actively mining for
two years out of a five-year location on that property.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered his belief that although the [new
provisions] could place a burden on DNR, the popularity of the
[program] would more than pay for itself. He indicated the hope
that the bill would [generate money to pay for other land
disposal programs] and be another tool for the state to use. He
suggested [HB 232] and the present program are compatible and
reinforce each other.
Number 1582
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said [HB 232] provides that the commissioner
and the department would identify rights-of-way into the
properties, which could be [burdensome] but also could be a
"well-hidden" advantage for Alaska because the state has "sorely
needed programs" that need to identify access but that don't
have it. He mentioned other changes he thought would be
beneficial to the department. Presently, for example, the
department only requires a 5-percent down [payment] on land
sales, which has been raised to 20 percent [in the bill]. He
again suggested the money would be needed for [HB 232] and also
for [DNR's] own land sales.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned problems because people pay the 5-
percent down payment and feel there is nothing vested and
therefore "trash" a place and walk away; he remarked, "That's
the last thing that in this piece of legislation we want to
see." Highlighting other aspects of the bill, he said the
commissioner would always have authority to deny applications.
The commissioner would identify three years in advance that an
area would be nominated, which would ameliorate a "land rush"
because people could have time to prepare. Separation would
remain the same, but is worded differently for administrative
purposes. The program would be for Alaskans; the permanent fund
dividend [database] would be used to verify an applicant's
eligibility. He reiterated his appreciation for the work Carol
Carroll and Bob Loeffler had done.
Number 1780
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference,
saying he appreciated the cooperative nature Representative Fate
had shown and the opportunity to [voice] DNR's concerns. He
explained that [DNR] has serious concerns with [HB 232], which
fundamentally changes the philosophy of state land sales and
significantly increases the cost. Since Alaska became a state
in 1959, the state has never had the ability to negotiate
individual sales with individual people. For example, land
offered for sale is offered to everybody in the state; it cannot
be offered to just one person, with some very specific
exceptions that are preference rights, which are highly
circumscribed in statute and which [DNR] has reasonably little
discretion on. Mr. Loeffler said he believed that's how it
should be. Furthermore, if the state is going to offer land for
sale, it should be offered to all Alaskans. However, [HB 232]
authorizes DNR to do private land sales, in three [parts of the
bill].
MR. LOEFFLER indicated [the bill] is specific with regard to who
is eligible to negotiate with the state for the [land], and
would exclude other Alaskans [from the process]. He turned
attention to Section 3, [page 3] line 5, which read in part,
"Sales under this section may be at public or private sale."
Mr. Loeffler noted, "That is a general authorization for a
person to walk in [off] the street, and I negotiate with them
but nobody else." He suggested [line 5] is fundamentally
different from the policy established [at] statehood. He
further suggested [he doesn't have the ability to negotiate
exclusively with one individual and not another]. He again
offered his belief that when he sells the state's resources, all
Alaskans should have equal opportunity.
Number 1940
MR. LOEFFLER turned attention to Section 4, subsection (g) [page
3, beginning on line 20], which he said would allow him to
negotiate "any land anywhere" under the bill if the [applicant]
can [verify] three consecutive years of recreational use. For
example, if someone had snowmobiled or camped on the land for
three years, that person could negotiate exclusively with [DNR]
and nobody else would get the opportunity, although [DNR] is
required to do a best interest finding. He told members, "I
don't believe that's correct."
MR. LOEFFLER also expressed concern that [Version T] would
require at least five years of use by the [nominating] person,
including two years of active mining under a mining claim, and
that would give the person the right [to the parcel] at the
discretion of DNR. He cautioned members, "I believe this will
make our mining laws not for mining, but this will make our
mining laws a subterfuge to ... gain land that other Alaskans
won't get." Mr. Loeffler indicated active mining areas are
typically closed to settlement because conflicts over lands
between fee ownership and a mining district are significant.
MR. LOEFFLER pointed out that [Version T] would provide that in
those areas closed to the general public, miners and no one else
would have access to the land; he remarked, "I just don't think
that's right." Mr. Loeffler explained that his first objection
is that [HB 232] changes the fundamental thrust of how the state
disposes of its resources, which to his belief has been
consistent since statehood. Second, he believes [Version T]
raises that cost because it provides a maximum number of staking
authorizations that the department may issue, which would be two
times the number of square miles in a staking area.
MR. LOEFFLER offered that [DNR] has a "workable" remote parcel
program that is in the first year of use and is very popular; it
offers 295 authorizations. He remarked, "We're quite proud of
it." He said he'd gone through the authorizations that [DNR]
has approved through borough platting laws and figured out how
many [authorizations DNR] could have offered if [HB 232] had
been in place. Currently, 512 authorizations have been
approved: 295 for last year and some for the coming year. He
said [DNR] would also "do others" that hadn't been approved for
the coming year. Under the maximum guidelines, [DNR] would have
been able to offer 213 [authorizations out of] 512. The [bill]
therefore decreases the density by about half. He reminded the
committee that the numbers are approximate, depending on what
[DNR] offers, and shouldn't be taken literally.
MR. LOEFFLER suggested the department would have to find twice
as many [parcels under HB 232, Version T], which would
significantly raise the cost. Additionally, the land sale
program makes money for the state, but remote lands makes less
than the "reoffer program," which he called "the real money
maker." He cautioned that the [proposed] program is in danger
of costing more than the return would be to the state. He
suggested [HB 232] privatizes land sales, rather than allowing
all Alaskans to compete, and it raises the cost.
MR. LOEFFLER pointed out that [subsection] (h) stipulates that a
purchaser can't make improvements until half the total purchase
price has been paid. The department has 20-year contracts on
some [parcel] sales, and [subsection (h)] would prevent the
purchaser from building on the parcel for 10 years. He
remarked, "While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think
that's necessary."
MR. LOEFFLER also pointed out that the [bill stipulates] an
appraisal and a survey would be completed within 12 months; he
told members, "We don't think that's possible on remote sales."
In previous systems, he reported, people have had 10 years [to
complete the appraisal and survey], which [DNR] is "really
tightening ... up now." Mr. Loeffler further explained that
staking is done one year; surveying is done the next year; once
[DNR] approves the survey, the appraisal is done the third year;
and [DNR] also provides a fourth year "just in case something
goes wrong." He expressed doubt that an [appraisal and survey]
could be completed in 12 months.
Number 2214
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if [HB 232] would impede future
development for resources.
MR. LOEFFLER replied:
If we didn't locate them properly, it would. If ...
we allowed you to stake land in a place where
development was likely to occur, I think the example
of "True North (ph)" clearly shows it has the
potential to impede ... development. Certainly, if
you stake the location of Pogo road, the same would be
true, although the bill does give me discretion to
disapprove it.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that directional drilling [for
oil or gas] would not be as big an issue as mining.
MR. LOEFFLER concurred.
Number 2286
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked: If the state wanted to create a mine
lease where parcels were located, would it have to buy back
those sites through eminent domain and compensate the land
owner?
MR. LOEFFLER answered that [DNR] tries not to allow people to
stake land where expected development would be impeded. He said
[DNR] would do an evaluation and wouldn't allow [people to stake
land] in areas with active mining districts, "except for
[subsection] (g) of this bill."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if there is an obligation to ensure that
access is available by land to the [parcel] sites.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that [DNR] goes through borough platting
requirements, but the boroughs have [authorized] fly-in access
for sufficiently dispersed areas.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if any state laws would be violated in
regard to access.
MR. LOEFFLER answered no.
Number 2398
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked how many acres of land had been
returned to the private sector since statehood.
MR. LOEFFLER said [DNR dispensed] roughly less than 10,000
parcels from 1980-1999, at an average of 460 a year, mostly in
the early 1980s. Over the last two years, the rate of offerings
had been drastically increased, and [DNR] [is offering] a lot
more this year and next year.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked whether [HB 232] would impede or
help with the process of returning land to the private sector.
MR. LOEFFLER offered his belief that [DNR] has a "very workable"
remote cabin program; he expressed pride in it. The program is
much more efficient, he said, noting that DNR has offered 295
authorizations this year and that more are expected for the
coming year. He said the impediment to offering land has always
been that it takes money to do so. Mr. Loeffler offered his
belief that [HB 232] increases the cost of land offering and
would be an impediment to transferring land to the public.
Number 2497
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if there is a way to make [HB 232]
workable so that miners with legitimate claims could obtain
rights to the property. He also asked whether there are
stringent guidelines available so that people wouldn't use [HB
232] as a ruse.
MR. LOEFFLER offered his belief that the "self-initiating"
mining law is the foundation of the mining industry. He added,
"I don't believe there is any way to say it - that I will give
land to miners and other Alaskans - that will not endanger that
law, and that remains fair to Alaskans."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked [if there was a program that gave]
preference for recreational use for nominating or giving land
out to other types of users.
MR. LOEFFLER said there was no other program.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered hypothetical examples regarding
whether development could occur on a remote cabin site.
MR. LOEFFLER mentioned leases and noted that people's
expectations of remoteness typically get in the way of such a
lease.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether, through subterfuge, the bill
could provide access to land or maybe "forced access to land"
for development that wouldn't be possible without the bill.
MR. LOEFFLER said:
We have the ability to lease land for that kind of
development now, and I would hope we would use it
aggressively. And we have the ability, if you want
land and suggest that we sell it under [the] remote
recreation cabin program, for us to sell it. One of
the innovations of this bill that we disagree with is
that if you suggest it, we then would sell it only to
you and not offer it to other Alaskans. And that,
plus the additional cost is, frankly, my main worry.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed another hypothetical example:
If by doing this, as opposed to saying I would like to
go into this area and see about developing that, and
there may be ten or twelve people that want to compete
on that, have I created a problem with ten of these
special remote [cabin] sites in there - in my favor -
somehow?
MR. LOEFFLER indicated it may be possible but said he was
unsure.
Number 2753
JERALD STAMSEL, Pilot, testified via teleconference. Mr.
Stamsel told the committee he was in agreement with HB 232. He
offered his belief that [the citizens] of this country need more
land. He spoke about his adult children and the difficulties of
purchasing remote land for recreational purposes. He said,
"It's about time we had something like [HB 232]. And I think
it's a good job, and it's a great deal for this country, and we
need it bad, and I am in agreement."
Number 2805
RUDY VETTER testified via teleconference, informing the
committee that he was in agreement with HB 232. He acknowledged
it would have some complications that need to be "worked out as
usual." Mr. Vetter suggested [language in] the bill would "take
care of anything" pertaining to minerals, gas, and oil. He also
suggested the administrative code of 1962 covered [minerals,
gas, and oil]. He referred to a bill passed when "the
legislature was forming some of the laws" and referenced
"administrative code number seven." He said:
Anyone that might accidentally or purposely place
themselves upon [a] mineralized zone is subject to the
fact that they will be paid adequate compensation, as
determined by the commissioner, for their property.
In other words, they cannot go in there and tie a
piece of potential oil, mine, gas, or other natural
resources up.
MR. VETTER turned attention to page 3, subsection (g), and said,
"I take exception about the fact that you're only offering this
to one specific person." He identified the key word in
subsection (g) as "before", because it specifies that "before
offering the parcel for disposal to the public, the commissioner
may offer the parcel to the person nominating the parcel for
disposal." He suggested some considerations and conflicts have
to be worked out.
MR. VETTER told members, "We need more land." He indicated
miners are especially in need of more land because they are
"producing" a natural resource at no cost to the government.
Mr. Vetter mentioned the development of Fort Knox and True North
and his endeavors as a miner in the past. He spoke about
[minerals as] "true money" in comparison to paper [money] and
referred to the recent Enron [accounting scandal that resulted
in the loss of millions of dollars to investors and employee
retirement funds]. Mr. Vetter reiterated his support for HB 232
and added that most people won't find this land to be free
because it requires work under any circumstances.
TAPE 02-17, SIDE B
Number 2990
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded to testimony that suggested HB 232
was not fair to all Alaskans and did not provide the same
opportunity. He reported that he knew of people who had tried
to [acquire land] under the present lottery system who felt they
were treated unfairly and didn't have an opportunity because
they "weren't lucky enough to get their name drawn out of the
hat." He suggested HB 232 would make it possible for every
Alaskan to [acquire remote recreational sites], that it is fair,
and that the nominating process ensures control by the
commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE reflected on his experience as a miner and
noted that a person [wouldn't put forth the time] to mine
property for two years, which is extremely cost-intensive, and
have the property for five years just to "prove up on a piece of
property" to get two and a half acres in the wilderness. He
mentioned that HB 232 is a change in philosophy and indicated
[it would provide all Alaskans with an equal right to remote
recreational sites] as long as the [site] wasn't encumbered by a
Native allotment, village corporation, other fee-simple
property, or previously staked mining property. He added that
[HB 232] provides protections.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE turned attention to the fiscal note and
said:
We haven't received the fiscal note yet, even with
this, because of ... the nature of the committee
substitute. We ran our own ... fiscal note on this,
and the break-even point was 80 people, if they do
their own survey and appraisal, which this provides
for; they don't have to - the commissioner can say no,
it's close enough ... in a block that we'll do it.
So, it's ... cost-effective; it's not going to be a
cost to the State of Alaska if you go in and survey
and have your own appraisal done. It doesn't cost the
state a darn thing.
Number 2852
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned researching the cost of state
land, which he said ranges from about $700 to $4,000 an acre.
He estimated it takes about eighty people to locate land to
offset the cost to the State of Alaska, provided that those
people do their own surveying and appraisals. He indicated that
the increased cost in the original bill was because, according
to his reading, it required seven people to do the mapping,
which would call for an increase in personnel.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to the bill packet and
[unspecified] statements that [indicate mapping would take one
person an hour and a half, provided there was global positioning
satellite (GPS) information]. Mentioning other statements
indicating it would only require one hour, he pointed out that
even if mapping required two people, it would be far less than
seven. He acknowledged that small changes may need to be made
to the bill, but said it is a good first step and a good bill to
get remote sites to people in Alaska.
Number 2782
REPRESENTATIVE FATE talked about raising the cost in remote land
parcels and how the State of Alaska has literally made town
sites, which he suggested have been cheaper to survey and to
appraise parcels that are lumped together. However, he said,
they cease to be remote parcels and instead become remote sites
with all kinds of parcels. He said that's not what many people
want; they want a remote parcel at least one-half mile away from
their neighbors, instead of 200-300 feet away. He mentioned
other requirements that keep [sites] remote. Representative
Fate suggested [HB 232] doesn't endanger anything and won't
impede mining. He mentioned that [HB 232] was a "hold-over"
from the previous year and said:
As a matter of fact, we worked on that aspect of this
piece of legislation, and we worked very hard to
satisfy the mining industry, and we've had many
conversations with Steve Borell, who's the executive
director of the Alaska Miners Association, until we've
come to this point where it's, I think, acceptable to
them. And so it's not a dodge now, all of the sudden,
to hear that it isn't acceptable because of the nature
that might impede mining on mineralized ground.
Number 2720
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said the commissioner has the option of not
nominating the [site] if it is mineralized. He also mentioned
protections in the [bill] in regard to subsurface rights; he
referred to Section 2, subsection (a).
Number 2673
CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned that the Kenai Peninsula Borough had
to inherit some mining-selected sites that were under state
lease. Under state law, people were allowed to put up a
temporary shack, but instead they built $100,000 homes. He said
the leases ran out; [the borough] tried to negotiate sales
palatable to the buyer but couldn't come to agreement, and the
homeowners were forced to move the homes. He expressed concern
about the intent of people trying to acquire sites and related
it to the aforementioned incident. Representative Scalzi asked
for an explanation of the problem with continuing the lease
program.
Number 2592
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said there's nothing wrong; however, the
lease program is not a fee-simple program, whereas this is. He
spoke to Co-Chair Scalzi's concerns and reiterated the
protections provided in the bill. He referred to True North and
said the bill was gone through thoroughly; there is nothing that
can prevent a [legal] suit. He said warnings can be posted that
the land is subject to mineralization and mining; however, if a
person wants to build there, he/she cannot be stopped. He
indicated that if the site is nominated, the commissioner can
stop [building from occurring]. He described this as a
deterrent and a way of control so that people can't build in
these areas.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE reiterated that people cannot be stopped
from filing lawsuits, although it costs both parties a
tremendous amount of money. He emphasized his belief that
protections are provided in Section 2, subsection (a), and
through the commissioner's power to reject applications. He
said, "We tried to write in as much protection as we possibly
could within this piece of legislation."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI compared HB 232 to other legislation, noting
that site selection is done by DNR. He said it takes the
individual out of it, which is a good part of the process, but
creates the problem of negotiating with one individual. He
mentioned remedying the situation to create a more open process,
such as an auction.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said it's "nonnegotiation" and that the
protection in [the bill] is instated. There's a best interest
finding on preference rights. If two or more people want [the
same site] and have had use of the property, the commissioner
would do a best interest finding with regard to the preferences
relating to the property. In response to Co-Chair Scalzi, he
indicated the reason for getting away from an auction or
lottery system is because people don't get the property they
want.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if the public trust doctrine would be
satisfied by having the commissioner make the determination.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said the commissioner could make that
determination under the best interest finding.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI reiterated the question.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said, "I think so."
Number 2345
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if a best interest finding is done
only at the preference point and whether it is upfront.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said the best interest finding has to be
done on the nominated area.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether a conflict would be solved
with another best interest finding if two people nominated the
same area.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that would be the commissioner's
responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how the best interest finding
would be conducted.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that he couldn't answer that, but
said the commissioner would have to make the decision.
MR. LOEFFLER suggested, if more than one person wanted a parcel,
the only fair way would be through an auction if the [site] had
been surveyed, or a lottery if it had not.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if that would be a best interest
finding.
MR. LOEFFLER answered that the best interest finding would have
to be done before the property was offered for sale in a
preference-right type of offering, auction, or lottery.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what would be done if two people
had the same preferences for the same [site].
MR. LOEFFLER replied that he'd have to put it up for auction or
lottery.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI remarked that Representative Fate is assuming
[DNR] would have to develop criteria for a judgment on who
better qualifies for a parcel and is using "best interest
finding" as a term to help the commissioner determine which
applicant is more suited. He asked whether [DNR had a way to
determine if one person should be awarded a site over another
person].
MR. LOEFFLER offered his belief that the bill doesn't give him
the direction to determine whether one person is more deserving
than another. He said, "If multiple Alaskans want it, I have a
responsibility to serve them all equally." He reiterated that
if more than one person wanted a [site], he would be forced to
go through a lottery or an auction.
Number 2157
REPRESENTATIVE FATE called attention to an [unspecified]
communication from Mr. Loeffler that Representative Fate said
conveyed the following, "By authorizing or directing DNR to do
private land sales, we have to do individual preference-right-
type best interest findings." Representative Fate added,
"That's where I got my information to make the statements I
did."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested [it wouldn't apply] if two
people had the same preference - for example, a husband and wife
with the same qualifications who were divorcing and both wanted
the same site.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that going back to a lottery or an
auction isn't acceptable and does away with the whole concept of
the bill. He suggested [HB 232] is the fairest method, so that
people don't have to take the chance of a lottery or for those
who don't have the money to bid high on property.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Loeffler if he could address
the issues without using a lottery or auction.
MR. LOEFFLER answered no. He elaborated:
I do not see a way for me to say I think berry pickers
are less deserving than snowmobilers, who are more
deserving than skiers, who are less deserving than
miners. And I can't see saying people who have been
here 16 years are more deserving than people being
here 15 years, or parents more deserving than people
with grandchildren. So those are determinations of
value that I don't believe are for me to make.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked whether, after the initial best
interest finding had been made, [a preference] such as "first in
time, first in right" [could be used in making the final
determination].
MR. LOEFFLER replied, "If the bill gave me that direction, then
that is, of course, what I would do."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated Representative McGuire's
suggestion was in the original [bill language], but that "we
basically got talked out of it by the department."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE suggested [the bill] be two-tiered.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded that the subcommittee had
already considered that, but it could possibly lead to inequity
[or] a res nullius problem.
Number 1890
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Representative Fate if there was a way to
reach his goal with the bill and satisfy the state process.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated he didn't see one currently. He
reiterated earlier statements and said he anticipated that if
the bill passed, it would ultimately be amended at some point.
He said he envisioned the program would be utilized more in
staking private land for a fee simple and would "fill up" that
land fund much more readily than suspected. He said he'd based
this off of the number of people who'd expressed support for the
bill, which he estimated to be over 100. He spoke about [the
first-come, first-served] problem and whether it was serious or
not. He indicated he was in favor of moving the bill and spoke
about resolving the problems.
Number 1726
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called attention to line 5 [Section 3,
which amends AS 38.05.600(a), page 3], which read, "Sales under
this section may be at public or private sale." He compared a
public sale to an auction and asked what protections are
available for the person who wants to acquire the [site] but
doesn't want the sale to be open to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded:
I can't remember, except "public sale" was a result of
two or more people wanting the same parcel. But if
you do that - open it up to a public sale - then, to
be fair, you have to open it up to a public sale. The
private sale takes care of itself: that's where the
individual stakes the ground, goes through the
procedure of appraisal, surveying, whether or not it's
adjudicated that he does it. And this, again, is in
the bill. Or the commissioner has the authority to
have it done by the state, which ever be cheaper.
To me, it's must more efficient and effective, but we
did try and accommodate DNR on this, because they felt
that in some instances it was less costly and maybe
more efficient for them to do it. And I didn't deny
that, but we did leave open room, at least, for that
individual who staked that ground to ... pay the cost
of his own appraisal and his own survey.
So, to answer your question specifically, that ...
public sale would come about in the event that there
were two or more people that wanted the same piece of
ground. Once that public sale came about, though,
you'd have to open it up for all people that were
interested, and then it would become more or less an
auction, ... in that specific circumstance - but it's
not an option for parcels or a parcel such as done at
the present time; there's a differentiation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered his belief that "sale" would
indicate others could be there, as opposed to having an
agreement between the state and one individual. He asked, "How
would they know before they decided to make it a private or a
public sale?"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that a private sale would consist
of the applicant's staking the ground, having the site surveyed,
and going through the process. If there were no contest, a sale
would take place between that individual and the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how it would be known that somebody
else is interested in that [site]. If the commissioner grants a
private sale, does he/she [provide public] notice of the sale?
REPRESENTATIVE FATE suggested somebody would say, "I have also
staked this parcel, ... and I find that somebody else staked it,
and I'd like it too."
Number 1457
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Division of Support Services,
Department of Natural Resources, told the committee the best way
to know if there is a parcel that somebody had staked would be
through the best interest finding. If an individual wants to
nominate a parcel, it would require that the department provide
public notice and take comments. She indicated DNR has to do a
best interest finding on any [land] disposals.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered, "So, what you're saying is,
really, you'd never be able to do a private sale, and because
this says "may be at", it just isn't going to be an issue."
MS. CARROLL replied that if there were no other public comments
that disagreed or reflected another person's interest, [DNR]
could do a sale to the individual; she added, "We just will not
do it in the dark." She reiterated that public notice would be
given because it is a land disposal sale.
Number 1358
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated that if the language had
gotten so specific, then it would no longer be discretionary.
She mentioned that there are [court] cases relating to use of
the word "may," which require the department to do something
because of the way [the language] is set out. She suggested the
language in [HB 232] may be to that point.
MS. CARROLL said the department had not looked at the language.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA surmised that the department's intent
would not be to do the truly private sale in this particular
section [Section 3].
MS. CARROLL reiterated that [DNR] would need to do a best
interest finding.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to a drawing and asked about the
number of sites that can be staked within a certain area.
MS. CARROLL responded that there are limitations on how many
people can stake in certain areas. In further response, she
suggested it was Representative Fate's intention to ensure that
[the sites] are remote, so there aren't "subdivisions" in those
areas.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE concurred. He indicated preferences were
included because of existing cabins on the "meander line" of the
river that are closer than one-half mile. He said those cabins
wouldn't be removed just because they don't comply with the
half-mile separation. However, a new entry for a site would
comply with the setback criteria.
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that the bill would be going to the House
Finance Committee if moved, and suggested Representative Fate
would continue to work on the bill during that time.
Number 0945
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HB 232 [version 22-
LS0791\T, Kurtz, 3/15/02] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. She said
she had faith that Representative Fate recognized the bill had
problems that would be addressed before it went to the floor.
Number 0895
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected. She indicated the
subcommittee had worked hard on trying to resolve the issues.
However, Alaska and the public lands in the state are based on
the public trust doctrine and maintaining equal access for
people. She expressed concern about ramifications in other
areas and added, "I'm afraid that no matter what we do, we're
always going to wind up at that blockade." She contended that
the problems should be addressed in the current committee, but
conveyed respect for the sponsor's intentions of helping people
who traditionally have been going to an area for years.
Number 0777
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned concerns about timing. He said
there is one contentious [issue] and that he didn't think the
department would ever be fully satisfied because of the existing
[land disposal] program, which he believed [HB 232] would
augment. He remarked, "Even if it were left ... the way it
were, it would be better than what we've ever had before, which
is exactly zero."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed the problem was one for the current
committee to address, and said it would be a mistake to send it
to another committee. He inquired about the sponsor's
[intentions].
CO-CHAIR MASEK suggested holding the bill over to address the
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated his intention to have the bill
reviewed from a legal standpoint. He again mentioned his
concern about timing.
Number 0570
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE withdrew her motion to move the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE reiterated his intention to resolve the
problem. [HB 232 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|