Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/24/1993 01:47 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
March 24, 1993
1:47 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
MEMBERS ABSENT
NONE
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 67
"An Act amending provisions of ch. 66, SLA 1991, that relate
to reconstitution of the corpus of the mental health trust,
the management of trust assets, and to the manner of
enforcement of the obligation to compensate the trust; and
providing for an effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 64(FIN)
"An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the first and
second degrees and providing penalties for their violation;
providing a peace officer with the authority to arrest
without a warrant a person the peace officer has reasonable
cause to believe has committed stalking; relating to the
release before trial of a person accused of stalking;
prohibiting the suspension of imposition of sentence of a
person convicted of stalking; relating to the crime of
assault in the third degree; and providing for an effective
date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD THIS DAY.
SENATE BILL NO. 152
"An Act changing the frequency of certain state inspections
of weights and measures and relating to the issuance of
citations for weights and measures violations."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD THIS DAY.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 101(HES)
"An Act relating to eligibility for and payments of public
assistance; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD THIS DAY.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 67 - See Resources minutes dated 2/3/93 and 2/5/93.
See Judiciary minutes dated 3/1/93 and 3/8/93.
HB 64 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/22/93 and 3/24/93.
SB 152 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 3/16/93.
See Judiciary minutes dated 3/22/93 and 3/24/93.
SB 101 - See HESS minutes dated 3/10/93, 3/12/93, and
3/15/93. See Judiciary minutes dated 3/22/93
and 3/24/93.
WITNESS REGISTER
Rick Johannsen, Attorney
Coalition Drafting Counsel
1029 West 3rd Ave., #300
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 67.
Timothy Mabery
1664 Montana Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Listened to SB 67.
Mrs. Rebecca Knight
P.O. Box 1331
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Listened to SB 67.
Brian Bjorkquist, Asst. Atty. General
P.O. Box 110300
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 67.
Lois Ann Reeder
9600 Slalom Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Listened to SB 67.
David Walker, Attorney
417 Harris
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 67.
Tom Koester, Contract Attorney
Department of Law
229 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 67.
R. B. Stiles, President/Owner
D. & R. Ventures
1227 W. 9th Ave., Suite 210
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 67.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-30, SIDE A
Number 001
Chairman Robin Taylor called the Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 1:47 p.m.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned SB 67 (MENTAL HEALTH TRUST
AMENDMENTS) introduced by the Senate Resources Committee to
the Judiciary Committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR reviewed a number of amendments in the bill
packet submitted to the committee. He queried those wishing
to testify on the teleconference network if they had
Amendments A.3 and A.4 contained in an attached memorandum
dated March 18, 1993 from the Division of Legal Services
from JACK CHENOWETH, Legislative Counsel.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted the memorandum, "Comments on Proposed
Amendments to SB 67" from BRIAN BJORKQUIST, Assistant
Attorney General for the Department of Law, dated 3/23/93.
In addition to comments, the letter contained proposed
amendments to be considered in SB 67.
SENATOR TAYLOR also reviewed amendments from CHENOWETH, A.5
and A.1, dated 3/11/93 and 3/23/93. He then assured the
teleconference sites they would have the amendments faxed to
them now.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked who would be first with their
amendments, and RICK JOHANNSEN, the attorney for a coalition
of intervener plaintiffs, came forward to testify.
Number 068
MR. JOHANNSEN explained he had been advising two coal
company clients, Usibelli Coal Mine and the Dimond Chuitna
project proposed for South Central Alaska, and had been
asked to work with the other attorneys and parties that are
members of the coalition supporting changes to Chapter 66.
MR. JOHANNSEN began by listing those in the coalition as
being two of the four plaintiff groups in the Weiss
litigation, including the Alaska Coal Association, the
Alaska Miners Association, and the resource Development
Council, the oil company intervenors in the Weiss
litigation, Marathon and UNICAL, and all of the public
interest intervenors in the Weiss litigation, eight groups
represented by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. MR.
JOHANNSEN also mentioned a representative of the Alaska
Environmental Lobby, who has participated in the coalition
discussions.
Because of the complicated legal aspects of the dispute, MR.
JOHANNSEN said all of the coalition interests have attorneys
who have participated in the deliberations of the coalition.
He drew attention to amendments A.1 and A.3 in the bill
packets as the work of the coalition. With these
amendments, the coalition believes SB 67 would solve most,
if not all, of the legal problems with Chapter 66. In
addition, he explained the amendments were intended to
address specific legal questions raised by the Alaska
Department of Law. He noted a companion bill in the House,
HB 201.
MR. JOHANNSEN began by addressing Amendment A.1, which
SENATOR TAYLOR explained as 8-LSO409\A.1, CHENOWETH, dated
3/11/93.
Number 118
MR. JOHANNSEN said the first change on the amendment would
be to eliminate Section 3 of SB 67, leaving AS 37.14.031 in
its original form in Chapter 66, and he explained the
background behind their recommendation. He said the
plaintiffs in the coalition had initially wanted the
incoming proceeds of original Mental Health Trust Lands to
go to the trust corpus, but the Department of Law felt this
could violate the terms of the 1956 Enabling Act. To
eliminate this potential problem, he said the coalition has
agreed to have all of the incoming proceeds go to the Trust
Income Account as currently designated by Chapter 66.
MR. JOHANNSEN explained the second change in A.1 would amend
the collateral provision of the bill, which in turn would
amend Chapter 66, by clarifying that the pledged
legislatively designated areas, LDA, can continue to be
developed by the state to the extent the law currently
allows development. The Department of Law had expressed
concern the pledge of these lands as security could prevent
the state from doing anything that could diminish or impair
the value of the collateral.
MR. JOHANNSEN said the proposed revision is intended to
clarify the state can continue to take actions that would
otherwise be allowed by the legislative designation - even
though the LDA land is pledged as collateral.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for a brief explanation,
Number 156
MR. JOHANNSEN explained that SB 67 would generate income
into a trust fund from a mixed land cash trust and would
secure the payment of the cash in the trust income account
each year. He said the plaintiffs are requiring collateral,
which would be the LDA lands and original mental health
trust lands set aside in previous years in parks, recreation
areas, forests, and critical habitat lands.
MR. JOHANNSEN said the concerns of the coalition were if the
lands were collateral, the state would be unable to carry on
activities that would normally be allowed. He gave as an
example the harvesting of a forest area, saying the use as
collateral wouldn't prevent the harvesting of the timber.
SENATOR TAYLOR wanted to hear if there was opposition from
the committee on Amendment A.1.
SENATOR LITTLE clarified A.1 as allowing present activities
to continue on the trust lands. MR. JOHANNSEN explained the
legislatively designated areas and original mental health
lands would be pledged as collateral, so these lands would
not be part of the trust, but collateral to secure the
state's payment each year. They discussed restrictions,
business as usual, and change of ownership.
Number 218
SENATOR TAYLOR polled persons in the audience as to who was
opposed to Amendment A.1, those supportive, and anyone
opposed on the teleconference network. He checked with
TIMOTHY MABERY in Fairbanks, but he didn't have a copy of
the amendments, and neither did MRS. REBECCA KNIGHT in
Petersburg.
SENATOR TAYLOR turned to MR. BJORKQUIST in Anchorage for his
comments or opposition to the amendment.
MR. BJORKQUIST said the comments from the Department of Law
dealt with A.1 on page 3, subsection (2) and were outlined
in their letter. He expressed concerns over A.1 in that
there is a potential for ambiguity as to whether the
provision that allows the use of lands in legislative
designated areas would also include restrictive use of trust
lands.
MR. BJORKQUIST suggested a modification to add language to
the Amendment A.1, and MR. JOHANNSEN explained he would
support the insertion of additional language to 8-
LSO409\A.1,CHENOWETH dated 3/11/93. This would be an
amendment to Amendment A.1.)
It would read on Page 2, line 31, after "and,";
Insert
"(1) notwithstanding the pledge of the land as
security or that the land was granted to the state under the
Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act of 1956, P.L. 84-830, 70
Section 709, the state may continue to conduct all
activities on the land that are authorized by law; and
(2)"
SENATOR TAYLOR surveyed all parties to the legislation and
to the LIO in Anchorage to hear from LOIS REEDER, CLIFF
EAMES, BILL BOBRICK, and KANDIE LITTLER for their opinions.
MS. REEDER had polled everyone in Anchorage, and they all
agreed with the amendment to the Amendment A.1.
Number 283
SENATOR LITTLE moved to pass the amendment to Amendment A.1.
Without objections, so ordered.
MR. JOHANNSEN was asked to explain Amendment A.3, dated
3/18/93, give an overview, and answer questions.
MR. JOHANNSEN explained that Amendment A.3 contained three
substantive provisions, with the first being a land
management provision, the second, a public interest
safeguard provision, and the third, a definition of
unrestricted general fund revenue. He explained the
importance of the land management provision which requires
the trust to take back original mental health trust land
subject to existing third party interest such as leases,
gravel sale contracts, or land use permits. It would
require the Department of Natural Resources to manage these
lands with the rules and regulations under which the third
party bargained.
In exchange for allowing their land to return to the mental
health trust, MR. JOHANNSEN said the lessees he represented
would be guaranteed that the rules would not change as long
as their third party interests were in effect. He explained
AS 38.04 and AS 38.05 would continue to apply to these
lands, and these will be called Section 802 lands because
they would be managed under a new Section 802 in the bill.
All other original trust lands, MR. JOHANNSEN explained
would be returned to the reconstituted trust, including
those lands that are truly vacant, unappropriated, and
unreserved, and not subject to third party interest. He
further explained these lands would be managed under
whatever management standards the trust authority may adopt,
and there was a presumption that the trust authority will
contract with the Department of Natural Resources to manage
lands under the Trust Authority's fiduciary obligations.
MR. JOHANNSEN discussed possible arrangements for the
management of these lands which he called Section 9 lands,
because they would be managed pursuant to Section 9 of AS
37.14, except these lands would not be subject to any third
party interest at this time - vacant, unused, and unreserved
lands. He emphasized the Trust Authority could do as it
wished with the lands, in contrast to the 802 lands with a
third party interest.
Number 333
SENATOR LITTLE clarified the difference between the two
types of land.
MR. JOHANNSEN addressed the second of the three substantive
provisions in Amendment A.3, the public interests safeguard
provision. He explained that reconstituted trust land, not
Section 802 land, would be managed by the Trust Authority,
and he reviewed the safeguards in the statutes that would
not apply to the Section 9 land. To protect the bill from
constitutional challenges, MR. JOHANNSEN said Amendment A.3
would require multiple purpose use of Section 9 trust land,
while recognizing trust principals as the priority in any
conflict with the objective of multiple use.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for any questions on the aspects as
described.
MR. JOHANNSEN addressed the third substantive provisions
which is reflected in Amendment A.3 as a definition of
"unrestricted general funds." He explained the definition
tied the meaning of the phrase to the manner in which money
is categorized under the statewide accounting system.
MR. JOHANNSEN said there would be no limitation on the power
of the people, or the legislature to restrict general fund
revenue, and he described the calculations of the 6% to be
paid to the trust income account based on the way state
funds are categorized today.
Number 380
SENATOR JACKO expressed concerns the legislation would bind
future legislators to use the general fund, but MR.
JOHANNSEN said the bill really provides that 6% of the
unrestricted general fund from the revenue of the state
would be allocated each year to the trust income account.
He explained the definition of unrestricted revenue would
help to categorize the mental health funds.
SENATOR TAYLOR mulled over the concept and clarified this
law would be gaining status as opposed to all future laws
without change. MR. JOHANNSEN said he was correct in
relation to the 6% allocation, and he explained the process
for each year.
SENATOR TAYLOR considered the problems with categorizing
general funds in opposition to the Governor in the
settlement of administrative litigation of old taxes. He
discussed the concerns of the legislature on the proper
designation of the funds.
MR. JOHANNSEN had no opinion on the dispute but expressed
some understanding on the problem. As to the debate over
mental health funds and the unrestricted general fund
revenue, he said it may have to be resolved by the courts
and would follow the outcome from the problem outlined by
SENATOR TAYLOR.
Number 420
SENATOR TAYLOR wanted to preclude future legislatures from
changing the definition of general fund income, but he
wasn't sure it was possible to provide a high level of
security for the litigants.
MR. JOHANNSEN said SENATOR TAYLOR was correct in his
surmise, since any legislation could be reversed or
corrected by a subsequent legislature, but the bill did not
attempt to prevent that. He also said SENATOR TAYLOR was
correct in noting the discomfort of some of the plaintiffs,
which was why they wanted collateral.
MR. JOHANNSEN returned to SENATOR JACKO'S question to
explain the bill talked about an allocation to the trust
income account, but, he explained, the legislature still
must appropriate money from that account to the mental
health programs, pursuant to the procedures in Chapter 66.
He said the coalition would welcome suggestions from the
legislative staff on such a complicated accounting subject.
MR. JOHANNSEN made a general comment on both amendments,
explaining the coalition had kept the other plaintiffs and
the Department of Law informed of the coalition activities
and positions. He indicated the wish to work with all of
the parties to resolve the problem in a fair and responsible
manner but, since the matter is incredibly complicated, they
would welcome constructive ideas.
MR. JOHANNSEN reviewed two other amendments, A.4 and A.5,
which he said were technical amendments identified by the
legislative drafter, but do not alter the substance of the
bill or the two amendments supported by his coalition. At
some point he wanted to address the materials received from
the Department of Law.
Number 469
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that DAVID WALKER had arrived, but he
hadn't seen either JEFFREY JESSEE or JIM GOTTSTEIN.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN to review Amendment A.3,
and he suggested going page by page. MR. JOHANNSEN
discussed the first provision that he thought was necessary
to show there are two types of land, Section 9 land and
Section 802 land. He explained the first insert would be
placed in Section 9 to make the reader aware there would be
a different land management program under Section 802.
MR. JOHANNSEN referred to the second insert, which takes up
the remainder of page 1, as the public interest safeguard
provision proposed by the coalition. He also referred the
committee to the letter from the Department of Law letter
which speaks to the provision in the second part of
Amendment A.3.
MR. JOHANNSEN said it was important to understand that all
the coalition had proposed was there be a preference for
multiple purpose use for Section 9 land, whenever it was
consistent with the trust fiduciary obligations. He
explained it was already followed by the Department of
Natural Resources for all state land, and he believed it was
the minimum the Alaska Supreme Court would require. He also
explained the Department of Law was concerned that more
might be required by the Alaska Supreme Court, or the public
interest language could generate litigation.
MR. JOHANNSEN warned if the state and the plaintiffs, still
supporting Chapter 66 in its current form without any public
interest protection, think that the courts are going to let
them run rough shod in their development of reconstituted
trust land, they're being totally unrealistic. He cited the
supreme court as imposing some balance between managing
trust land to maximizing revenue to the trust and protecting
the broader public interest.
Number 500
MR. JOHANNSEN quoted the Department of Law as generating
litigation, and he acknowledged it might, but he said the
threat of litigation always exists and is no worse than the
threat that currently exists each time the DNR makes a land
management disposal decision. He described the limitations
placed on a challenger by the safeguards of the legislation,
and he considered the limited safeguard a reasonable balance
between the trust desire to manage trust land without any
consideration of the broader public interest and the need to
protect the broader public interest of the people of the
State of Alaska.
MR. JOHANNSEN quoted the Department of Law letter saying the
public interest interveners should publicly testify to
accepting the present standard and promise not to go to
court over more public safeguards. He rejected the state's
suggestion and explained it was currently the subject of
litigation in the Weiss case. He explained the interveners
expected more from the courts if the litigation is allowed
to run its course.
SENATOR TAYLOR invited BRIAN BJORKQUIST, Assistant Attorney
General, to respond to the remarks from MR. JOHANNSEN.
MR. BJORKQUIST disputed the positions taken by the coalition
as to the proposed amendments taking care of the potential
challenges to Chapter 66. He referred to a statement by MR.
JOHANNSEN later saying that might not be the case, and he
offered the state's concerns over potential challenges to
management by the Trust Authority. He gave some examples
under Article E, Section 10 of the Alaska Constitution in
relation to safeguards.
MR. BJORKQUIST thought any litigation should resolve those
issues dealing with the management obligations to the mental
health trust. He disagreed with MR. JOHANNSEN over issues
of multiple use and restrictions imposed under the proposed
amendments as well as a trust principle exception to the
multiple use provisions. He referred the committee to page
3 of the letter from the Department of Law and reviewed the
comments on SB 67 to the committee in i) regarding what
would become AS 37.14.009(b)(1), which he said should be
referenced in multiple use management.
SENATOR TAYLOR referred the committee to CHENOWETH,
Amendment A.3, page 1, and asked MR. BJORKQUIST if he agreed
with the sentence ending with "... trustee set out in AS
37.14.007:. MR. BJORKQUIST agreed and suggested adding "or
AS 37.14.009. He described an aspect of unpredictability to
those coming to DNR or the Trust Authority with ideas on
developing those lands. He spoke of ways to encourage
people to come forth to develop those lands.
TAPE 93-30, SIDE B
Number 001
SENATOR TAYLOR queried TIM MABERY Fairbanks, MRS. KNIGHT
from Petersburg, JOHN MALONE from Bethel, and LOIS REEDER,
but all had no comment.
MR. WALKER, speaking from the audience, asked how the
amendments were going to be moved. SENATOR TAYLOR said it
was his intention to move the amendment, either in part or
whole, as soon the discussion has been completed. He
invited MR. WALKER to make his comments at this time.
MR. WALKER explained he was the lead counsel for the
settling plaintiffs in the litigation, those who support the
provisions in Chapter 66 and the present settlement before
the court now awaiting approval. He indicated he was aware
of the actions of the coalition, but he explained the
original plaintiffs, the Alaska Mental Health Association
and Vern Weiss, were not part of the coalition and do not
support another approach at the expense of the settlement,
while maintaining it should be approved by the court and
supported by the legislature.
MR. WALKER said his purpose at the meeting is not to react
to any of the amendments, because some of the amendments
cause him considerable concern. He was concerned there
needed to be a process that worked for everybody. If there
is to be a new settlement, MR. WALKER thought the
Administration should be negotiating with the parties, but
he didn't think the legislature and the coalition should be
negotiating a settlement agreement. He termed it a
dangerous proposition and said the committee needed to keep
aware the settling plaintiffs were not part of the
coalition.
Number 058
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed frustration by MR. WALKER'S
testimony and how long the resolution of Chapter 66 will
take. He then called on TOM KOESTER, Attorney for the
settling plaintiffs, for his testimony.
MR. KOESTER said everyone was looking for a solution that
works and censured a remark by MR. JOHANNSEN that the
interveners were confident that the Alaska Supreme Court
will require more than this bill provides. He felt it was
unfair for MR. JOHANNSEN to suggest to the committee that it
was a solution. MR. KOESTER said the interveners can't have
it both ways, and he said this was of great concern to the
state.
SENATOR TAYLOR also expressed some grave concerns as to the
management proposal and was reluctant to accept some of the
compromises in the spirit of achieving a solution. He
didn't think the legislature could mandate a multiple use
concept on a coal mine or a gold mine.
BOB STILES of the Dimond Chuitna Coal project asked to
testify.
Number 107
MR. STILES explained to SENATOR TAYLOR how a coal mine was
an example of multiple use, and he used his Wishbone Hill
project as a specific example. He described the Wishbone
Hill project as being within the MatSu Moose Range and an
LDA. MR. STILES further explained a gold mine could be a
temporary land use, and in his case the land would go back
into wildlife habitat.
MR. JOHANNSEN gave an other illustration of multiple use
when land was harvested of its timber and then used for
mining. He explained these were principles in AS 38.05.285
presently used by DNR and would be used by the Trust
Authority. He explained the job of the Trust Authority was
to maximize revenue, and he outlined some of the risks
involved in litigating development. MR. JOHANNSEN said the
interveners would prefer to compromise rather than litigate.
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed with MR. JOHANNSEN the amendment to
add AS 37.14.009 to Section 3 (1), and MR. JOHANNSEN said
his clients had no problem with it. He thought it was a
good suggestion and the result of compromise within the
coalition.
Number 150
SENATOR LITTLE moved to amend page 3 of Amendment A.3,
Section 3, (1) after "AS 37.14.007(;) or AS 37.14.009;
Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN to move on to his next
proposed amendment.
Before going further with the amendment, SENATOR TAYLOR
expressed concern that within the old Chapter 66 the trust
properties in the reconstituted mental health trust would be
received by a board with the greatest level of autonomy
possible in the management of the lands. He gave the Beluga
Coal Fields as an example.
MR. JOHANNSEN directed the next amendment to the top of page
2 of Amendment A.3, and the definition of "unrestricted
general fund revenue." SENATOR TAYLOR asked what would
happen to the interest income in present endowments such as
the Science and Technology Endowment and the Railbelt Energy
Fund within the general fund.
MR. JOHANNSEN asked if it was revenue restricted by a law to
a specific use, and SENATOR TAYLOR explained it was not
designated but was restricted. He explained it was done by
putting a fence around the account within the general funds.
He also gave the example of the Anchorage International
Airport Account.
SENATOR TAYLOR was concerned all of the revenue streams
would be tapped for 6% under the legislation, and MR.
JOHANNSEN suggested it was probably the case with what he
presently knew, and if it was not presently restricted by
law to a specific use. SENATOR TAYLOR concluded by calling
the discussion an accounting exercise in regards to the
Mental Health Trust Fund within the general fund out of
which, as a legislature, make appropriations for programs
recommended by the Mental Health Board. MR. JOHANNSEN
thought that was correct.
MR. JOHANNSEN read the next proposed amendment on page 2 of
Amendment A.3 for the definition of "conveyed or encumbered"
land.
Number 198
SENATOR TAYLOR invited MR. BJORKQUIST to address any
comments or concerns to the committee on the subject of
unrestricted general fund revenue of the state. He said the
state had no comment at this time on the issue.
SENATOR TAYLOR directed MR. JOHANNSEN to continue.
MR. JOHANNSEN returned to the definition of "conveyed or
encumbered" to explain why these were lands that would not
be returned to the trust, and he further explained these
lands were described under the intent of Chapter 66, but was
never specified in Chapter 66. He thought it was an
improvement on Chapter 66 and settled some of the
ambiguities of Chapter 66.
Again, SENATOR TAYLOR checked with MR. BJORKQUIST as to any
problems with the proposed amendment on "conveyed or
encumbered."
MR. BJORKQUIST had some suggested additions to the amendment
to clarify, and he referred to page 4 of the letter from the
Department of Law to add to the meaning of "conveyed or
encumbered." He explained the reasons for the addition of:
"(F) is subject to an interagency land management
agreement, interagency land management transfer, management
agreement or management right but does not include land
unnecessary to carry out the purpose of the interagency land
management agreement, interagency land management transfer,
management agreement or management right."
SENATOR DONLEY suggested a proposed committee substitute
should be written by the Judiciary staff to be adopted as a
work draft. SENATOR TAYLOR thought that was an excellent
idea since the legislation has become more complex. He said
he would try to have it completed for the next meeting.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN for his opinion of
Subparagraph (F), and MR. JOHANNSEN expressed agreement with
the amendment to Amendment A.3. He thought it was a change
that would continue the intent of the bill.
Number 279
SENATOR LITTLE moved to amend Amendment A.1 to include a new
Subsection (F) on page 3, line 12, under Subsection (E).
Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned the meeting to MR. JOHANNSEN.
MR. JOHANNSEN referred the committee to page 2 of Amendment
A.3 to "Page 3, line 14" and said it was a drafting
provision in the definition section of the bill to include
the definition of "a lease."
MR. JOHANNSEN said it was the same procedure for "Page 3,
line 16," and would clarify that mining claims were also
mining leasehold locations. He explained that in the same
place, "Page 3, line 19," was intended to add to the list
exactly those kinds of lands subject to third party
interests and make it consistent with AS 38.05.802.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. BJORKQUIST for any concerns on the
proposed amendments, and MR. BJORKQUIST said the Department
of Law had additional suggested amendments to Amendment A.3.
He explained his suggested changes to allow sold land to
include conversion rights to sale, and he explained the sale
contracts. He referred the committee to page 5 of the
letter from the Department of Law which would be:
(F) "(G) is subject to a land lease issued with
conversion rights to sale."
MR. BJORKQUIST explained there would need to be conforming
amendments later in the bill with reference to AS 38.05.809
(3) which would clarify the lease amendment without
conversion rights to sale.
MR. BJORKQUIST suggested under Subsection (C), designated as
"Page 3, line 12," on page 2 of Amendment A.3, it should be
amended to read:
"(C) has been selected by a Native corporation
under 43 U.S.C. 1611;"
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified he wanted both that amendment and
the previous suggestion of a new Subsection (G) under
"conveyed or encumbered."
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN for his comments, and he
said the proposed Subsection (G) had been discussed with one
of the plaintiff's lawyers. The lawyer disagreed it was the
best way to handle land subject to those particular
interests, and he elaborated on the disagreement. After
some discussion, SENATOR TAYLOR suggested they work on a
better place to put the proposed amendment.
Number 358
After some discussion of the placement of the word "Native,"
SENATOR LITTLE moved to include "Native" before
"corporation" in "Page 3, line 12," Subsection (C) of
Amendment A.3. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR DONLEY praised SENATOR TAYLOR'S tenacity in working
on the legislation, but renewed his suggestion to have the
staff and all parties to the legislation work on a committee
substitute. They discussed the technical nature of the
legislation, and SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN how much
more detail would be needed to complete his dispute with the
state.
MR. JOHANNSEN thought SENATOR DONLEY'S suggestion was
correct, and said he would be available to work on the
legislation, since he thought it was important to move the
bill forward. He stressed the need for a vehicle during
this session to prevent more litigation.
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested MR. JOHANNSEN work directly with
both legislative and committee staff, MR. KOESTER, and other
Department of Law staff to draft two committee substitutes -
one sponsored by the state and one by the coalition. In
addition, SENATOR TAYLOR wanted a specific chart to show the
significant differences between the original Chapter 66 and
the amendments as proposed. He didn't preclude other
interests offering their amendments, also.
Number 464
SENATOR TAYLOR charged the participants with using the
remainder of the week to draft the proposed committee
substitutes to SB 67 to be brought before committee on
Monday, March 29, 1993.
MR. WALKER thought the process would be helpful also to the
settling plaintiffs. MR. JOHANNSEN indicated his
willingness to work on the proposed committee substitute.
MR. STILES, as a business man, explained the coalition had
resolved all of the changes suggested by the Department of
Law in concept, and he suggested a single committee
substitute could be drafted.
SENATOR LITTLE agreed with MR. STILES and implored the
participants to agree on a single committee substitute to
move forward on the bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR reiterated his request to have the matter
resolved, and he thanked the participants on the
teleconference network in Anchorage, Bethel, Petersburg, and
Fairbanks for their participation.
There being no further business to come before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|