Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/26/1997 10:17 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 26, 1997
10:17 A.M.
TAPES
SFC-97, # 71, Side 1 (000-246)
CALL TO ORDER
After a brief recess, Senator Bert Sharp, Cochair, Senate
Finance Committee, reconvened the meeting at approximately
10:17 A.M.
PRESENT
In addition to COCHAIR SHARP, COCHAIR PEARCE, SENATORS
PHILLIPS, TORGERSON, and ADAMS were present when the meeting
was reconvened. SENATORS DONLEY and PARNELL did not attend
the meeting.
Also Attending:
SENATOR LYDA GREEN; CAROL CARROLL, Division of Support
Services, Department of Natural Resources; and aides to
committee members.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 109 AGRICULTURAL LAND
SENATOR GREEN explained a proposed CS work draft
(version B) before the committee. COCHAIR PEARCE MOVED
to ADOPT the draft as CSSB 109(FIN). Without
objection, it was ADOPTED. Testimony was heard from
CAROL CARROLL. COCHAIR PEARCE MOVED CSSB 109(FIN) from
committee with individual recommendations and the
appropriate fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSSB 109(FIN) was REPORTED OUT with forthcoming fiscal
notes from the Department of Law and the Department of
Natural Resources and fiscal notes for SB 109 from the
Department of Law (138.5) and the Department of Natural
Resources (25.0/Support Services, 28.5/Agriculture,
131.5/Land).
SENATE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to land used for agricultural purposes and
to state land classified for agricultural purposes or
subject to the restriction of use for agricultural purposes
only; and annulling certain program regulations of the
Department of Natural Resources that are inconsistent with
the amendments made by this Act."
COCHAIR SHARP summarized the last meeting on SB 109 in which
several amendments had been discussed. He noted they had
been included in a draft CS which was before the committee.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN pointed out she was working from the "B"
version work draft dated 3/26/97. She had worked with the
department on conceptual changes and compromise language.
There were four areas in which the department had requested
changes. The first was choosing either a conservation
easement or a perpetual covenant and she chose the latter
for inclusion in the bill. The second area concerned a
limited liability policy for the small window of time when
the land reverts back to the state during conveyances being
made from agriculture rights to perpetual covenant. The
third request was for survey language in Section 2. The
language was permissive rather than a requirement, therefore
the commissioner had the ability to require cadastral survey
or to allow it to be done by aliquot parts. Fourth, was a
provision for payment to the state when land was sold
outside the family. There has a flat fee of $6,000 for the
right to build a residence or the dwelling site right, or
the owner of the agriculture rights land could have an
appraisal. If it was lower than $6,000, the appraisal would
be the applicable figure. That was not to be confused with
impacting the total value of the land or a per-acreage
increase because the only difference that was assumed was
the right to build a house and to subdivide. The
agriculture purpose and use of the land remained the same.
SENATOR ADAMS asked the difference between perpetual
covenants and conservation easements. SENATOR GREEN
explained the reason for addressing the issue was to get the
state off the document. Currently, with agriculture rights,
the state is first in line in case the land reverts for non-
payment or non-performance, rather than an independent
lender. Therefore, there has been the inability for an
agriculture rights owner to get private funding. A
conservation easement was nearly identical because the state
stays on the title and she didn't want that. In a perpetual
covenant the title flows to the landowner with certain
restrictions on their ability to subdivide.
COCHAIR SHARP asked for a motion to adopt the proposed CS.
COCHAIR PEARCE so MOVED. Without objection, CSSB 109(FIN)
was ADOPTED.
SENATOR GREEN brought up an additional item for the
committee's information. The department had no objection to
repealing the regulations concerning the agriculture
homestead program in the bill. COCHAIR SHARP asked if there
were any new or additional areas of concern by the
department in the CS from what had been previously
discussed. SENATOR GREEN brought up page 7, line 4, noting
the department had previously suggested the wording "single
residence" and "farm employee housing" but has accepted the
current substitute language.
COCHAIR SHARP invited the department representative to
answer questions or offer comments on the proposed CS.
CAROL CARROLL, Division of Support Services, Department of
Natural Resources, testified that she received the draft
moments earlier, faxed a copy to the Division of Land, but
there was not enough time to look at it. She acknowledged
they had worked with the sponsor, but that they were "not
quite there yet and we'd like to have time to look at this."
She suggested it was getting closer, but could not say more
without having the professionals really look at the bill.
SENATOR GREEN pointed out to Ms. Carroll that the
information she had yesterday afternoon was essentially the
same, but there was some clarification because the drafter
had misunderstood her office "on intent in conveying and
had constructed it for one set of rules for property under
640 acres and then applied that land over 640 acres would be
charged for the whole thing, and that's not what this was
ever intended to address because that's already covered
under other statutes."
MS. CARROLL reiterated that she had not had a chance to look
at the bill but was working closely with Senator Green on
it.
COCHAIR SHARP brought up page 8, line 11, inquiring if it
was a department request or caused any significant
"heartburn." SENATOR GREEN responded that they deferred to
six years because it referred to a trespass statute versus a
real property statute and it was more realistic.
MS. CARROLL was uncertain how the department professionals
would view the language.
COCHAIR SHARP called for additional questions. There being
none, he asked the pleasure of the committee.
COCHAIR PEARCE MOVED CSSB 109(FIN) from committee with
individual recommendations and the appropriate fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSSB 109(FIN) was REPORTED OUT
with forthcoming fiscal notes from the Department of Law and
the Department of Natural Resources and fiscal notes for SB
109 from the Department of Law (138.5) and the Department of
Natural Resources (25.0/Support Services, 28.5/Agriculture,
131.5/Land).
COCHAIR SHARP announced the next meeting and agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:31 A.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|