Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1995 04:00 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
March 6, 1995
4:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman
Senator Steve Frank
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Lyman Hoffman
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Robin Taylor
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 56
"An Act relating to rights in certain tide and submerged land."
SENATE BILL NO. 49 - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
"An Act relating to the Board of Fisheries; and providing for an
effective date."
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 56 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated
2/20/95.
SB 49 - See Resources minutes dated 2/20/95 and Resources
Subcommittee minutes dated 2/24/95 and 2/25/95.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Fred Zharoff
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 56
Richard LeFebvre
Deputy Director, Operations
Division of Land
Dept. of Natural Resources
3601 C St., Suite 800
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 56(CRA)
Annette Kreitzer
Senate Resources Committee Aide
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for sponsor of SB 56
Geron Bruce
Legislative Liaison
Dept. of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 56
Sara Hannan
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 56
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95- 20, SIDE A
Number 001
SL&C - 3/6/95
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 4:00 p.m. The first order of business was SB 56,
sponsored by Senator Leman. He noted SB 56 has been reviewed by
the Community and Regional Affairs Committee, and a similar measure
was introduced last year.
ANNETTE KREITZER, committee aide, read a sponsor statement to the
committee. She made the following comments. SB 56 was introduced
at the request of the Aleutians East Borough. It allows all
municipalities, home rule, first, and second class cities and
boroughs, to apply for conveyance of tide and submerged lands if
four conditions are met by the municipalities. Those conditions
are: a lack of unreasonable interference with public access
resulting from proposed use; an application must be submitted for
conveyance; compatibility of proposed use and land classification
or land use plan for the area must exist; and a need for land
development. Land conveyed under SB 56 would be subject to the
Public Trust Doctrine. Title to land conveyed under SB 56 would
revert to the state if the municipality is dissolved. SB 56 would
not affect municipal land entitlements provided by AS 29.65.
Number 055
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked for an explanation of the committee
substitute. MS. KREITZER explained the Community and Regional
Affairs committee substitute (offered 2/21/95) added language which
is included in a companion bill on the House side. Under Section
1, subsection (a), the phrase, "Unless the commissioner finds that
the public interest in retaining state ownership of the land
clearly outweighs the municipality's interest in obtaining the
land,..." was inserted. The new committee substitute, dated
3/6/95, adds a provision that would deal with problems associated
with the City of Skagway.
SENATOR PEARCE moved the adoption of the committee substitute,
dated 3/6/95, as the working document. There being no objection,
the motion carried.
Number 095
SENATOR ZHAROFF explained the committee substitute adds a provision
that makes it possible for the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to transfer land in question to municipalities. Current
practice allows DNR to transfer land to individuals but not to
municipalities. In the City of Skagway a dike was constructed
approximately 50 years ago to divert the river. At that time the
land that was reclaimed was between the new river course and the
old river bank. A number of developments have occurred on that
land, including a school, however financing has been difficult to
obtain because of the question of title. An identical bill passed
through the committee process last year but was lost during the
final hours of the session.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if a municipality has already taken its
entitlement, whether CSSB 56 would allow for additional
entitlements. SENATOR ZHAROFF deferred the question to the DNR.
Number 146
DICK LeFABVRE, DNR, replied that if a municipality had already
fulfilled its requirement it would not be eligible for an
additional entitlement, however there are other methods that could
be used.
SENATOR LEMAN explained a proposed amendment that would remove
language inserted by the Community and Regional Affairs Committee.
Number 170
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what the intent of including that language
was.
SENATOR PEARCE moved the adoption of the amendment.
DICK LeFEBVRE explained the language, which is contained in HB 20,
gives the Commissioner the discretion to object to municipal
selections outside of designated areas included in Section B, if
there is a greater public interest. He cited the TransAlaska
terminal facility in the City of Valdez as an example, and
explained under SB 56, DNR would not have had the discretion to
deny applications submitted by the City of Valdez.
Number 202
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the Anderson Bay property met the
requirements under CSSB 56(CRA), lines 5-10. MR. LeFEBVRE replied
that property would not have met those requirements. He discussed
future scenarios in which conveyance applications might meet those
requirements but the overall public interest would not be served.
SENATOR LEMAN clarified the question as whether to place trust in
the municipalities or the Commissioner.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked whether the recommendations included in the
Department of Fish and Game's (F&G) fiscal note were considered or
included in CSSB 56. SENATOR LEMAN noted the discussion was
limited to the amendment.
SENATOR HOFFMAN discussed his concern that, as a fall-back, there
should be a best interest findings provision on behalf of the
state.
Number 257
SENATOR FRANK clarified that if the amendment is adopted, DNR would
be mandated to convey the land if the three criteria on page 2,
lines 5-10 are met, and if the amendment is rejected, the
Commissioner may reject the application if it is in the state's
best interest. SENATOR LEMAN responded affirmatively.
Number 267
SENATOR FRANK questioned whether "best interest findings" are
subject to litigation. SENATOR LEMAN commented that "best interest
findings" are litigated all of the time. MR. LeFEBVRE agreed.
SENATOR HOFFMAN did not remove his objection to the motion to adopt
the amendment. A roll call vote was taken with the following
results: Senators Leman, Pearce and Lincoln voted "Yea," and
Senators Hoffman and Frank voted "Nay." The motion carried.
Number 300
SENATOR LINCOLN restated her question regarding ADF&G's position
paper. She asked if the two recommendations were accommodated.
GERON BRUCE, representing ADF&G, informed the committee that the
provision does allow the DNR Commissioner to deny a request for
land in a legislatively designated area if the use is incompatible
with the purpose of the statutory designations, but it does not
explicitly address the recommendation.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked whether ADF&G's first recommendation was
accommodated. MR. BRUCE responded it is addressed on page 4, line
15. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the committee substitute satisfies
ADF&G's concerns. MR. BRUCE stated he did not feel the second
concern has been explicitly addressed; ADF&G staff recommended that
legislatively designated areas not be conveyed.
SENATOR LEMAN clarified that the DNR Commissioner could not convey
those lands unless he/she determines that the proposed use is
consistent or compatible with the purpose of the statutory
designations. He felt the legislatively designated areas would be
covered.
Number 345
MR. BRUCE noted the DNR, not ADF&G, would make that determination.
SENATOR LINCOLN questioned the fiscal note. MR. BRUCE explained
the fiscal note speaks to the need to examine lands that would be
conveyed, and to advise DNR on the impact of the uses of those
lands on fish and game habitat. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the
fiscal note would apply to the amended version of CSSB 56. MR.
BRUCE answered it would as it applies to the question of the
legislatively designated areas, but if the land has already been
classified for waterfront development, those considerations would
have been examined in the fiscal note prior to the new committee
substitute.
Number 375
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the half-time biologist position included in
the fiscal note would be a new or existing position. MR. BRUCE
responded it would be ADF&G's preference to have a part-time person
assigned to these responsibilities, as any additional workload
would be difficult to accomplish with existing staff. He commented
the Habitat Division is struggling to meet the requirements of
legislation passed last year to establish tax credits on the Kenai
River.
SENATOR LEMAN commented CSSB 56(am) should not tie up one employee
half-time for an entire year as only a handful of applications are
likely to be submitted. He added he would prefer to see a seasoned
staff person do the job as they would not need to be trained.
Number 398
SENATOR LEMAN announced CSSB 56(am) would be held until Wednesday,
March 8, to review an updated ADF&G fiscal note.
SARA HANNAN, representing the Alaska Environmental Lobby (AEL),
testified. She noted the AEL has serious concerns about CSSB
56(am) as there are times when the state may have an overriding
interest in retaining ownership of land. She commented some
discretion to the State must be reserved to prevent future
conflicts when projects such as ferry terminals, or pipeline
terminals, are required. She explained with no discretion reserved
for the state, the State must transfer the land whenever the
application meets the 3 criteria. The Community and Regional
Affairs version of SB 56 gives DNR the discretion to reject the
application if there is an overriding public concern and the burden
of proof remains with the State. She added CSSB 56(am) would
change public access to tidelands which are owned by the state
since new municipalities could be granted rights to tidelands.
SENATOR LEMAN commented the bill transfers tideland conveyance from
one public entity to another and the Public Trust Doctrine would
hold for the municipality. MS. HANNAN replied the municipality
would apply for the land because they have a development plan for
it and the public use will shift. MS. HANNAN stated long into the
future the state may want to develop a deep water port. She
reiterated her concern that the State should retain the ability to
deny a permit based on overriding public concern. She added under
CSSB 56(am), the state would automatically have to transfer lands
that meet the criteria and the municipality could sell that land to
a third party.
Number 485
SENATOR FRANK questioned whether the municipality could sell the
tidelands to a private party. SENATOR LEMAN responded
affirmatively.
SENATOR FRANK asked if the State could do the same thing. DICK
LeFEBVRE responded negatively. SENATOR FRANK asked if the
prohibition against the state was constitutional or statutory. MR.
LeFEBVRE replied it is covered under statute. SENATOR FRANK
questioned whether there was a constitutional provision, similar to
that with regard to mineral rights. MR. LeFEBVRE replied, "Not
directly, no."
SL&C - 3/6/95
There being no further testimony on CSSB 56(am), SENATOR LEMAN
announced the Subcommittee hearing on SB 49 would be postponed. He
adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|