02/19/2004 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 19, 2004
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 270
"An Act establishing November as Avalanche Awareness Month."
- MOVED SB 270 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 319
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land by lottery; and
relating to the disposal, including sale or lease, of remote
recreational cabin sites."
- MOVED CSHB 319(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERSIGHT HEARING: WASTEWATER IMPACT OF CRUISE INDUSTRY REPORT
- HEARD [See 9:06 a.m. minutes for this date]
HOUSE BILL NO. 329
"An Act relating to retirement incentive programs for the public
employees' retirement system, the judicial retirement system,
and the teachers' retirement system; relating to separation
incentives for certain state employees; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 329(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the Alaska permanent fund.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
"An Act relating to the devices, including carbon monoxide
detection devices, required in dwellings; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 270
SHORT TITLE: AVALANCHE AWARENESS MONTH
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) GREEN
01/16/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/04 (S) STA
02/03/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/03/04 (S) Moved SB 270 Out of Committee
02/03/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/04/04 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR
02/04/04 (S) DP: STEVENS G, GUESS; NR: STEDMAN
02/06/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/06/04 (S) VERSION: SB 270
02/09/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/04 (H) STA
02/17/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/17/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 319
SHORT TITLE: REMOTE REC.CABIN SITE SALES/LOTTERY SALE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FATE
05/14/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/14/03 (H) STA, RES, FIN
01/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/13/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/13/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/03/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/03/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/10/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 329
SHORT TITLE: RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MCGUIRE
05/21/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/21/03 (H) STA, L&C, FIN
01/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/13/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
01/29/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/29/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/29/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/05/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/05/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
02/17/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/17/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 319.
NANCY WELCH, Special Assistant
Anchorage Office
Office of the Commissioner
Department Of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
department during the hearing on HB 319.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 319, on behalf of
the sponsor, answered a question from the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, responded to proposed amendments
during the hearing on HB 329.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives
Weyhrauch, Holm, Seaton, and Gruenberg were present at the call
to order. Representatives Coghill, Lynn, and Berkowitz arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
SB 270-AVALANCHE AWARENESS MONTH
Number 0050
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 270, "An Act establishing November as Avalanche
Awareness Month."
Number 0212
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report SB 270 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SB 270 was moved out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 319-REMOTE REC.CABIN SITE SALES/LOTTERY SALE
Number 0466
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to the disposal of state
land by lottery; and relating to the disposal, including sale or
lease, of remote recreational cabin sites."
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 319, explained that a committee substitute had been drafted
to incorporate some of the amendments the committee discussed at
a previous hearing. Additionally, there was an amendment
available to offer [Amendment 1, in committee packets].
Number 0698
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 319, Version 23-LS0477\I, Bullock, 2/14/04, as a work draft.
Number 0710
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
Number 0736
REPRESENTATIVE FATE turned to Amendment 1 [to Version I], which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, lines 9-12
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) prepare a schedule of land offerings under this
section and identify the parcels for disposal each
year; the land offerings may not include mineral land
selected by the state or lands identified by the
department as having a high mineral potential; the
department's identification of land having a high
mineral potential shall be based on standards adopted
by the department in regulations and shall include
consideration of a geophysical surveyor [sic]
geological evaluation, if any, that was conducted
within 15 calendar years before the year for which the
schedule is prepared; and"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated that some of the language in the
amendment was adopted from [the recommendations made by] the
Alaska Mining Association, as well as by the Department of
Natural Resources.
Number 0847
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously].
The committee took a brief at-ease.
Number 0906
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected [for discussion purposes].
Number 0915
REPRESENTATIVE FATE turned the committee's attention to the
fifth line of Amendment 1, where the words "survey" and "or" run
together. He recommended a technical change to add a space in
between. In response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, he
confirmed that another technical change was necessary to change
"Page 3, lines 9-12" to read "Page 3, lines 10-14".
Number 1079
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he is curious as to "the overlay of
lands claims and all of the things that are going on with the
state that we still haven't solved." He asked, "Where is this
going to fit in a time line?"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that the cut-off date is 2009. He
explained that if land is encumbered, it won't be offered for
location. He indicated that in 2009, a new evaluation could be
done of those lands that have become available.
Number 1160
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired if there is a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated that the fiscal note is an ongoing
[process], and he said there are two other committees of
referral for the bill. He reminded the committee that the
people who make the application for the available land will also
bear the expense of the appraisal and survey of the land. He
said it's expected that the state will actually make money from
this plan.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if, for example, the costs required
for DNR to evaluate which lands will be made available [have
been considered].
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that some administrative
expensive, such as map-making, will be borne by the state. He
indicated that the fiscal note being formulated is a good one.
Number 1296
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to Representative Fate's written
response to the Alaska Conservation Voters [dated February 3,
2004 and included in the committee packet]. He said there are
several financial assumptions included in that response. He
stated that he would like to see, if possible, a revenue-neutral
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE reiterated that "this" actually will not be
revenue neutral, but will be a positive source of revenue to the
state. He said there is hard data that can substantiate that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that his concern had been in
hearing Representative Fate speak of expenses borne by the state
[such as the map making].
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that those costs were included in
"the expense side of both of our fiscal notes."
Number 1425
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his objection to Amendment 1.
Number 1434
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 1 [as technically amended]. There being none,
Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
Number 1445
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it is his experience that there
usually is some kind of "DNR-type easement along streambeds or
lakes for access." He asked if that would be accommodated in
the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that "it does," because there are
other laws that deal with the mean high water and how far back a
person's property can start "on that." There are stipulations
that already are in law that require that setback to be so far
from a high water mark, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned to page 3, [lines 30-31], which
read as follows:
(1) the lake, river, or other navigable
water frontage must be at least 300 feet and may not
exceed 400 feet;
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that [the language] doesn't say,
"respecting other provisions of law." He added that it seems to
trump those other provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that that's true. However, he
offered the following example: If a person is on the Yukon
River, he/she can only have fee-simple property at a certain
point which is reflected by the survey. He explained that the
specific point is the high water mark for any particular river.
Number 1590
NANCY WELCH, Special Assistant, Anchorage Office, Office of the
Commissioner, Department Of Natural Resources (DNR), in response
to remarks from Representatives Berkowitz and Seaton, stated
that she does not believe HB 319 would change the statute, AS
35.05.127. She explained, "This is typical of any other land
disposal that we've sold; ... even if you get water frontage,
the state still reserves to it a public easement to and along
public and navigable water bodies." Therefore, the landowner
owns "to the ordinary high water mark," but does not get full
use and benefit of that 50 or 100 feet, because of the easement
that is reserved by the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if that easement is automatically
applied, so that private citizens "have the use of that, without
it being further designated," or if it is an easement for
putting in a designated road or trail, for example.
MS. WELCH responded that it is not automatic; the state actually
has to "find to what the width and use of that easement is." In
certain cases, she said, it may not be desirable to have
somebody build something because of instabilities of soils, for
example. Each individual parcel will still require a finding,
she said.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON mentioned recreational plots that would be
out along a river or lake. He asked if it is correct that if
the state doesn't "come in with a specific finding on that
parcel," the public could be prevented from transiting along the
bank of that stream, or around the margin of that lake.
MS. WELCH said that is correct.
Number 1768
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned again to a sentence at the
bottom of page 3 of [Representative Fate's] response to the
Alaska Conservation Voters. The sentence read as follows:
Rules and regulations restricting the size of borough
land sites within a borough are applicable on borough
owned land.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his interpretation of that
sentence is that the laws regarding the regulation within a
borough are governed by the local government law, and would
trump "this bill." He asked if that is correct.
Number 1831
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State
Legislature, testifying on behalf Representative Fate, sponsor
of HB 319, responded as follows for the record:
Borough, if it is more restrictive than state,
traditionally does trump state law.
Number 1849
MS. WELCH, in response to a question by Representative Holm,
confirmed that the fiscal note is $433,000.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pointed to the analysis which states that
the fiscal note assumes that there would be 150 applications.
He said it seems inconceivable that there would be $3,000-worth
of state costs per application. He asked Ms. Welch to define
"why that would be."
Number 1963
MS. WELCH explained that the way the bill is currently drafted,
an individual decision would be required on each parcel. That
decision would include a best interest finding and public
notice. She continued as follows:
And so, it's very similar to our existing preference-
right statute, [for] which we receive an application,
and then we have to adjudicate each land offering - as
opposed to the current remote parcels program where we
have gained a lot of efficiencies by batching certain
areas and we do one best interest finding for the full
area; we do one land appraisal; we do one survey. And
we contract for those, but the applicant is still
required to pay for the appraisal and the survey. So,
that's where a lot of the cost comes in to play, is
the amount of staff time that is required to process
each individual application.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if it would make sense that "that
would be a part of the cost to the landholder."
MS. WELCH replied that she doesn't think that [HB 319] addresses
that the cost associated with actually offering the parcel is
attached to the landowner. She noted that the state already has
a law on the books that says [the department] can charge a
deposit to individuals for processing. In that case, she said,
there will be some revenues to the state, but she stated she
thinks the interest in the program would "drop drastically."
Number 2000
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he serves on the DNR subcommittee
[of the House Finance Committee]. He noted that DNR "took a
substantial hit last night," which he opined seems to compromise
DNR's ability to conduct its core businesses. He asked Ms.
Welch if she would consider that the bill, as proposed, as
something at the core of "what you do," or if she would "put it
farther down the hierarchy of DNR responsibilities."
MS. WELCH stated her belief that one of the department's core
responsibilities is to do land sales. She said she thinks [the
department] will have to look for efficiencies, as it has done
in the past, to try to reduce its overhead. She concluded, "And
so, with the huge budget crunch to us and the cost ... per
parcel to process, I just don't see this as being high priority
for the state."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ thanked the folks at DNR for their
continued efforts.
Number 2087
REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned historic data from the
department's own records. He expressed that that, plus the
department's willingness to go to bat, has been helpful.
Number 2140
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Amendment 1, which the
committee had previously adopted. He mentioned page 2 of the
fiscal note and asked, "Which one of those is that incorporated
into - that geological and geophysical information?"
MS. WELCH answered that the fiscal note "does not reflect that
at all," because the fiscal note was created for the original
bill version. One of the reasons the word "or" [language from
Amendment 1] was requested was to "lower the standard, if you
will, for what would be required." She explained that a
geophysical survey is a much greater requirement than a
geological evaluation. She noted that most of the land use
plans reflect a high or low mineral potential. She said, "So, I
don't believe there will be a substantive cost to determine that
through ... [a geological] evaluation, as opposed to a survey."
Number 2237
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked if the term "meander mile" is a
term of art.
Number 2249
MR. POUND offered his understanding that "meander mile" is a
term used in regard to water.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH gave the example of a home that sits along a
river and asked if the measurement would be from the bank on
which the home sits. He asked if [the measurement would
involve] the middle of the river, or the far side of the river,
for example.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that the meander line is actually
the shoreline contour. He offered an example of a peninsula
with a base length of only 200 feet, but with a meander mile
[out along the peninsula and back] that could well be a mile.
Number 2287
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, on that point, expressed concern
regarding a mandatory minimum of a 300-foot waterfront. In an
oxbow situation, he said, 300 feet may not be feasible. He
asked what kind of accommodation would be available if 300 feet
were not consistent with the geography.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he thinks in that situation it would be
up to the commissioner to determine whether or not that land
would be selected.
Number 2386
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said there currently are considerations
for two timber sales - one for a laminated veneer plant in
Seward and the other for a chipping operation that would operate
in Point Possession, near Valdez. He asked if remote cabin
sites were sprinkled throughout the area in which the state was
trying to have a timber sale, how complicated would that
[become] in relation to the timber sale, and would the person
who reserved the right to the pieces of land be reserving the
timber rights on the land as well, until [that land] was
finalized as private property?
Number 2438
MS. WELCH responded that she doesn't believe that [HB 319]
actually changes classifications, and land use classifications
that have already been determined to be for timber or forestry
as the primary use would remain so. She stated her assumption
that those would not be allowed to be sold from the state.
Therefore, she concluded, the lands being considered for "these
value-added type industries" are those that have already been
classified as forestry, or within the state forest.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Welch to confirm that her
understanding is that the bill would not allow any of the lands
within either the forest or the state forestry timberland to be
selected for recreational cabin sites.
MS. WELCH answered that's correct. She said, "It does not refer
to [AS] 38.04.065, which is the land use planning statute, as
saying that it doesn't apply to that. So, my assumption is that
it's like any other land program; ... it has to be classified in
some type of settlement category in order to be sold, or we
would have to devise a land use plan in order to do so."
Number 2500
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Fate if that is also
his understanding. He continued as follows:
Basically, if that's the case, then all of the Tanana
Valley and the Mat-Su [Matanuska-Susitna] Valley -
even the west side of the Susitna - would be off-
limits to this program. Was that the intent of the
bill?
Number 2525
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that the intent of the bill is to
allow the commissioner and the director of the Division of Lands
and Water [in the Department of Natural Resources] to designate
"those areas." He added, "And it states in the bill ... those
lands that are already encumbered, and that would be an
encumbrance." He said, "So, we want to make land available, but
we also want to make sure that we don't impede the development
of the state of Alaska.
Number 2576
MS. WELCH, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, offered her understanding that "meander mile" is a
term of art that makes sense, but is not defined in statute or
regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if that term should be defined in
the bill, or if the committee should specifically state on the
record that it would like [DNR] to define it in regulation.
MS. WELCH replied that either would be fine. She offered her
understanding that "the meander" would be on the ordinary high
water mark line; therefore, it would be useful to define "that."
In response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, she
said the definition could be made in regulation if it's not
defined [by the legislature] in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he wants it clear for the
record that it is the intent of the committee that that term
specifically be defined in a regulation.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, concurred that a motion was not necessary in regard
to the statement of intent.
Number 2644
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to the last line of the
previously adopted Amendment 1 [to Version I], [regarding the
department's identification of high mineral potential land
including surveys being] "conducted within 15 calendar years
before the year for which the schedule is prepared;". He
referred to a letter (included in the committee packet), which
is dated February 16, 2004, and is from the Alaska Miners
Association, Inc., signed by Steven Borell. He pointed to the
second sentence in the last paragraph of page 1 of the letter,
which read as follows:
Given that geophysical technology continues to
improve, it is important that relatively modern
surveys are utilized without the requirement for a
survey immediately before a land offering.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that a survey could fall just
outside of the 15-year limit described in the language of the
bill and still be considered "relatively modern"; therefore, he
suggested that the language should be loosened a little bit.
Number 2778
MS. WELCH responded that 15 years is probably a time frame with
which the department can work. She said she would expect that
most of the mineral evaluations have been done within the last
15 years, in regard to land use plans.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he understands that that may apply
now, but he asked if that would always be accurate. He stated,
"I'm concerned that you'll find that - particularly with
budgetary constraints - you're not going to always be having
surveys that are 15 years old, yet they're entirely adequate."
MS. WELCH said she understands Representative Gruenberg's
concern. She continued as follows:
I would expect that - before we would change a
classification from something that had been previously
classified as low mineral potential to a land disposal
category, in order to offer that for sale - ... we
would have to conduct some kind of geologic
evaluation. Otherwise, for the lands that are already
classified as "settlement" we don't normally do that,
because we expect that we've already gone through an
analysis of what's of highest and best use for the
property.
Number 2808
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that [HB 319] would be heard by the House
Resources Standing Committee where this issue could be
considered in more detail.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he was satisfied with
that.
Number 2814
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern regarding a [previous]
statement that there wouldn't be automatic public access along
streams and rivers, unless they are delineated "by a certain
width and development of those right-of-ways." He asked if that
is incorporated in the fiscal note.
MS. WELCH replied that that is part of DNR's analysis. She
clarified that [DNR] has to do a best-interest finding for the
parcels. Part of that best-interest finding would be to
determine what to reserve along the water bodies.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is concerned that there is no
requirement that "foot traffic by the public is automatically
reserved." He asked if there is some way that could be
accomplished.
Number 2873
REPRESENTATIVE FATE stated his understanding of the intent of
the bill is that when a person gets entitled to fee-simple
[land], he/she only gets entitled to that portion that goes to
the high-water mark. He said, "The rest is reserved to the
public domain or where that high water comes from, and so that
is public access." He explained, "Being state ground, they
would have to designate that as being off-limits to the public
for some reason; it wouldn't be precluded because the new ...
fee-simple owner of that property in some way stopped people
from going over that public land. They don't own that land up
to that high-water mark."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that his concern is not just in
regard to where there is a long distance between the high-water
and low-water marks in the streambeds. He noted that many
streams have deep banks where the public would have to [walk] on
the area adjacent to the stream, while not walking in the stream
or "whatever the bank consideration is." He stated his
understanding that Ms. Welch had said that "unless there's a
specific finding and a specific designation, and a width of a
right-of-way that are reserved in these peaceable transfers, it
would not be automatically there." He continued as follows:
I'm concerned that the legislature does not, by
accident, come in and create situations where the bank
configuration is such that the public would be
precluded because all of the area above the high-water
mark - which is what can be transited - is going to be
private property with a fence down to the high-water
mark.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he doesn't think that's the sponsor's
intent.
TAPE 04-18, SIDE B
Number 2991
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that it is basically the state's
option to make that determination. The proposed legislation
simply deals with what happens to the fee-simple land. He
stated, "Once it's fee simple - when it becomes ownership -
that does not extend, as we've said, to that option that the
state can certainly exercise, which usually is to open that up
to public access." He said that by the very nature of giving
fee simple to the property owners, it wasn't the intent of the
bill to preclude anyone from public access to those areas that
were not owned by individuals "under fee simple."
Number 2912
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered an example of an area with a
bluff. He said a person could be walking along the upper part
of the bluff and there really isn't a large distance between
high water and low water where he/she can transit. He suggested
that unless there is a requirement in the bill that says the
state shall maintain access for foot traffic along the 300-400
feet of a river bank [where a person owns fee-simple land],
there is the possibility of DNR not going through and
designating on each parcel a certain width and place of passage.
He said that would mean possible impact to pedestrian traffic in
the backcountry.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that issue had been considered, but
"that curtails options of DNR in the state of Alaska." He
reiterated that the commissioner still has the final authority.
Number 2832
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, in response to questions from
Representative Holm, confirmed that a person could not own
contiguous land sites on a river; the bill is designed to offer
remote recreational sites, not subdivisions. He also confirmed
that a meander mile would be a mile as it goes back and forth
along a river's edge, for example.
Number 2760
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he shares Representative Seaton's
concern. He said, "When you're up against the bank on the other
side, there's no way to go down along the river bank." He
mentioned taking the best fishing sites and saying that's
somebody's remote site. He said, "I want the state to be able
to at least have access for all the property behind the river,
as well; to access the river." He explained, "I'm concerned
that we don't have the contiguous portion, so that we don't
block, if you will, the properties behind the river or not
adjacent to a river or adjacent to a lake, so they can have
access to that resource."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he has not concerned himself with this
issue as much as Representative Holm has, for a simple reason:
"Most of those are accessible by boat or float plane."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he is concerned about rendering in the
future.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that, in the future, if somebody
built a cabin right on the cliff, the high-water mark then would
be on the cliff. He stated his understanding that
Representative Holm had said that a person wouldn't be able to
access the shoreline because it was so steep.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said most rivers in the Interior of Alaska
have a accreted side and a side that's being cut out. He said a
person can't get to the riverbank because the water's right
there. That is the bank that is used for traversing. He
clarified his concern is that there is not a situation where
people go down the stream and all of a sudden are unable to
continue unless they go all the way around "some remote parcel"
to be able to continue down the stream [bank].
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said it is an historic high-water mark that
is taken at the time of a survey, and accretion or flooding
could change the area. He stated that these are questions that
really can't be answered, because of the very nature of change
of those streams.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM reiterated his concern. He gave an example
of someone moving along a stream while fishing and coming to a
spot where he/she cannot pass someone's property. He said, "The
high-water mark doesn't fit in here, because when you're on the
cutting side of the river, there is no high-water mark; the
high-water mark is maybe underneath where the bank is." He
indicated that if a person cannot get to the bank, he/she cannot
get to the high-water mark. He synopsized, "We don't care if
somebody owns to the bank; we just want to make sure that
somebody has an opportunity to walk along the bank."
Number 2582
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that the only situation in which
he has actually seen a nonexistent high-water mark is where
there is an actually rock formation in the cliff form. He
explained, "When you have alluvial deposits, ... you will have a
high-water mark up on that bank where you have that cut bank
that you've described, that keeps cutting into that ...."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that he respectfully disagrees.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified that he was talking about the
high-water mark. He mentioned taking "setback" requirements
into consideration.
MR. POUND noted that, for the most part, there are riparian
standards of 50-100 feet on all navigable waters in the state of
Alaska. That land cannot be developed. He said he believes
there is an access clause to navigable waters in Alaska that
"supercedes its existing statute language," and therefore
guarantees access to navigable waters and requires that the land
right next to the water cannot be developed. He said he
suspects a fence would be considered development.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "That works for me."
Number 2409
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is confused by hearing one person
say that there is guaranteed public access along the stream
banks even if there is fee-simple [land] right to the bank,
while hearing Ms. Welch say that there is no public access
unless each specific parcel is laid out with [certain
specifications]. He emphasized that he needs clarification from
DNR on the issue.
[HB 319 was brought back before the committee after the
oversight hearing on this same date.]
Number 2347
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH called an at-ease at 9:03 a.m. in order to
prepare for the oversight hearing regarding wastewater impact of
the cruise industry report.
[The minutes for the oversight hearing can be found under the
9:06 a.m. minutes for this date. See tape 04-20.]
TAPE 04-19, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reconvened the House State Affairs Standing
Committee at 9:32 a.m. after an at-ease that followed the
overview.
HB 319-REMOTE REC.CABIN SITE SALES/LOTTERY SALE
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee would return to
HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to the disposal of state
land by lottery; and relating to the disposal, including sale or
lease, of remote recreational cabin sites."
Number 0065
MR. POUND noted that he provided the committee with a [two-page
handout included in the committee packet], which shows both AS
38.05.127, "Access to navigable or public water", and
AS 38.05.128, "Obstructions to navigable water". He stated his
belief that this information should answer the majority of the
concerns of Representatives Seaton and Holm.
Number 0105
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a hypothetical example of a
river with one good fishing site on it that a lot of people use.
He asked what would prevent one person from basically "locking
that up and keeping everybody else from using it."
MR. POUND indicated that, based upon the previously mentioned
statutes, a person may not deny that access. He returned to his
example of someone putting up a fence and said that would be
obstructing access to navigable water, which is a misdemeanor.
Number 0252
REPRESENTATIVE FATE concurred with Mr. Pound's comments.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that answers his question.
Number 0310
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Welch to clarify if, under the
terms of the fee-simple sales and integral with the sales, AS
38.05.127 would require that public access be maintained along
all the water bodies [that are between] 300-400 feet.
Number 0380
MS. WELCH said that's correct. She reiterated that before [DNR]
can do any kind of land disposal, it has to do a finding that
the waters are public or navigable.
Number 0422
REPRESENTATIVE FATE stated for the record his appreciation of
the effort his staff has made on behalf of the bill.
Number 0470
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony.
Number 0490
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report CSHB 319, Version 23-
LS0477\I, Bullock, 2/14/04, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 319(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 329-RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Number 0536
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 329, "An Act relating to retirement incentive
programs for the public employees' retirement system, the
judicial retirement system, and the teachers' retirement system;
relating to separation incentives for certain state employees;
and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 329, Version 23-LS1109\H, Craver, 1/28/04, adopted as a
work draft on 1/29/04.]
[The committee took an at-ease from 9:38 a.m. to 9:42 a.m.]
Number 0623
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 1, a handwritten
amendment that read as follows [original punctuation provided,
with some formatting changed]:
Pg 8.
Delete Sec. 8 & renumber accordingly
Amend title to delete "the judicial retirement
system,"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected [for discussion purposes].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that there was previous testimony [at a
prior hearing] that "the judiciary was put in because it was
based on a previous version of the bill." He said, "There was
no testimony before the committee that that was necessary. It
seemed to adjust one person, and I'm not sure if the sponsor
objected to deleting that one person. It just dealt with the
administrative director of the court system."
Number 0690
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL McGUIRE, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor of HB 329, stated that she has no objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that "that" would also require that the
title be changed to delete the judicial retirement system,
because that would no longer be affected by the Retirement
Incentive Plan (RIP) bill.
MS. McGUIRE answered correct.
Number 0695
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM removed his objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. In
response to a question from Representative Seaton, he clarified
the adopted Amendment 1.
Number 0740
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 2, a handwritten
amendment that read as follows [original punctuation provided,
with some formatting changed]:
Pg 2 line 16
after system, "and"
line 18
after section, "and"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that during the last hearing on HB 329,
there was testimony that [paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), in
subsection (b), page 2] were to be cumulative as opposed to
alternative requirements. Amendment 2 would make that change.
Number 0770
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he wants to make certain
that [Amendment 2] comports with the legislative style manual.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH replied, "To the extent that it needs to be
tinkered with by legislative drafting, they have my permission."
Number 0800
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was further objection to
Amendment 2. Hearing no objection, he announced that Amendment
2 was adopted.
Number 0850
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 3, a handwritten
amendment that read as follows [original punctuation provided,
with some formatting changed]:
Add New Sec. 13 & renumber accordingly.
13. Implementation of this RIP shall not impair any
existing beneficiary of PERS or TERS [sic], nor
diminish any benefit any current beneficiary of PERS
and TERS [sic] expects to receive as a beneficiary.
Number 0859
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Amendment 3 addresses the concern
that those who are presently in the system wouldn't have their
benefits diminished if a RIP bill is adopted.
Number 0929
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] a conceptual amendment
to Amendment 3, which read as follows, [original punctuation
provided]:
The boards of the public employees retirement system
and the teachers retirement system shall have the
authority to suspend further enrollment in the
retirement incentive programs authorized by this act
upon a determination that further enrollment would
have a significant negative effect on the actuarial
soundness of the system.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned he wants to ensure the
integrity of the existing [Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS)] and [Teachers' Retirement System (TRS)], and also the
university [retirement system].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected for discussion purposes.
Number 0958
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to add a couple of
words to the conceptual amendment to Amendment 3 as follows:
After the words "public employees retirement system"
Insert ", university retirement system,"
Number 1062
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE stated that she is not aware of a
separate retirement system for the university.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH opined that the university is covered under
"this program the board of regents adopted, beginning on Section
4, on page 5."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE offered her understanding that "they're
covered under TRS or PERS."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH concurred.
Number 1073
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his belief that the university
does have a separate retirement system that it has adopted,
which is an "opt pay" that is "paid in and paid out when they
leave." He compared it to a 401(K) retirement system. The
employees have one month after employment to opt in to the PERS
system or to the university retirement system. He clarified
that it's a defined contribution program, rather than a defined
benefit program.
Number 1109
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated, "It seems to me if you're going
do this, then you need to make a ... conforming title
amendment."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "Absolutely. He suggested that
could be "a second amendment to the amendment."
Number 1142
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to
[Representative Gruenberg's amendment to the conceptual
amendment to Amendment 3, adding the university retirement
system]. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1168
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the
conforming conceptual title amendment [suggested by
Representative Berkowitz]. There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 1185
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the committee is running
fast. He said, "A defined contribution program does not have
any of the actuarial significance that a defined benefit program
has, and so, including this in here is going to be confusing,
because they don't apply." He requested that that be removed.
Number 1213
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved] to rescind the action to
include the university retirement system. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that the conforming title
amendment be stricken, because [it's no longer necessary].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved] to rescind the committee's
action [in adopting the conforming title].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "So rescinded."
Number 1232
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [renewed his motion] to adopt his
conceptual amendment [to Amendment 3, text provided previously].
Number 1249
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "If I removed my objection to the
amendment to the amendment, is there further objection?" [No
objection was stated, and the conceptual amendment to Amendment
3 was treated as adopted.]
Number 1270
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM removed his objection to Amendment 3 [as
amended].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 3, as amended. There being none, Amendment 3 [as
amended] was adopted.
Number 1300
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 4, a handwritten
amendment that read as follows [original punctuation provided,
with some formatting changed]:
Page 2, line 4
After "appropriate"
add "and subject to the requirements of section 13,"
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH explained that Amendment 4 refers to the adopted
Amendment 3. He said it "brings it back into the beginning of
the bill."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM offered his recollection that the word
"should" was used at one time.
Number 1399
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG proffered that that was "something that
Fate Putman suggested," but it was not actually amended. He
said he would be prepared to address that after finishing with
Amendment 4.
Number 1421
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM removed his objection to Amendment 4.
Number 1430
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 4. There being none, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to the amendment to which
Representative Holm had previously referred. As suggested by
Mr. Putman during a previous hearing of the bill, Representative
Gruenberg offered Amendment 5 as follows:
On page 2, line 5
After "employer"
Delete "need not"
Insert "should"
On page 2, line 6
Between "would" and "be"
Delete "otherwise"
Number 1545
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
Number 1553
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if there would be a fiscal impact. He
stated, "I'm concerned that we take an employer - in this case
the school districts and whatever - and we say they should
extend the incentive plan without knowing what the impact of
that's going to be."
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ opined that the decision that the House
State Affairs Standing Committee has to make is whether it
believes that Representative Gruenberg's proposal is better
policy; the House Finance Committee will determine whether [the
state] can afford that better policy.
Number 1580
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks [Amendment 5] would
significantly change the character of the bill. He indicated
that it would be a change from gaining efficiencies for the
system by allowing some rehires, for example, to almost a
legislative mandate to [extend the incentive plan] to all
employees, by using the word "should". He said he thinks it
would created legal challenges because of the uncertain
interpretation of the word "should". He stated his opposition
to Amendment 5.
Number 1666
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she also opposes [Amendment 5] for
many of the reasons that Representative Seaton just stated. She
emphasized that one of the important aspects of crafting [the
bill] was in ensuring that the RIP would be completely voluntary
and could be used as a managerial tool to help save money where
appropriate. She reminded the committee that "any plan
ultimately has to go through the Department of Administration."
If the plan doesn't meet savings criteria, it will never go
through, she warned. She said, "In point of fact, I've
maintained from the beginning [that] this ought to be a zero
fiscal note, especially with your amendments now."
Number 1720
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that "it's just all ...
instructive language, so we're arguing about nothing." He
encouraged the committee to bring the bill to a vote.
Number 1773
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 5. Representatives Lynn,
Holm, Seaton, Coghill, and Weyhrauch voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-5.
Number 1800
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report [CSHB 329, as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes]. There being no objection, CSHB
329(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1820
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:00
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|