Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/25/1998 03:40 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 25, 1998
3:40 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bert Sharp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the utilization of groundfish; and providing
for an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 310(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land by lottery."
- PASSED CSSB 108(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 310 - No previous action to consider.
SB 108 - See Resource Committee minutes dated 3/2/97, 3/24/97,
3/26/97, 3/2/98, 3/4/98, 3/18/98, 3/20/98, and 3/23/98.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Amy Daugherty, Staff
Representative Alan Austerman
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 310 for sponsor.
Mr. Rick Lauber
Pacific Seafood Processors
321 Highland Dr.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 310.
Ms. Kris Blackburn
Kodiak, AK
(907)486-3033
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 310.
Ms. Mel Krogseng, Staff
Senator Robin Taylor
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 108 for sponsor.
Ms. Jane Angvik, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Ste.1122
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 108.
Mr. Dick Mylius
Resource Assessment and Development
Division of Lands
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Ste. 1122
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 108.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-22, SIDE A
Number 001
HB 310 - UTILIZATION OF GROUNDFISH
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:40 p.m. and announced HB 310 to be up for consideration.
MS. AMY DAUGHERTY, Staff to Representative Austerman, sponsor of HB
310, said it is a very straight-forward bill. It extends the
current ban on pollock to groundfish using the concept of improved
retention and utilization(IR/IU). The North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council has been moving toward requiring certain
utilization in the offshore fleet and the Board has found they have
the authority to do the same thing in State waters, but only on
vessels. Inshore processors were left out of the picture. SB 310
enables the Board to include them.
Number 68
MR. RICK LAUBER, Pacific Seafood Processors, said he is also
representing the North Pacific Fishery Management Council of which
he is chairman. He said they need to conform the State law to what
the Council has done. The State has, for many years, been a
forerunner in reduction of waste and discards and this will make no
change in business practices of the onshore processors. It will
conform the State law to the federal regulations enacted by the
Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Number 97
MS. KRIS BLACKBURN, Kodiak Processors, testified that the Kodiak,
Dutch Harbor, and Akutan Processors are all in favor of this bill.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved to pass CSHB310(RLS) out of Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 108 - STATE LAND LOTTERY PROGRAM
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 108 to be up for consideration.
MS. MEL KROGSENG, Staff to Senator Taylor, sponsor, said there has
been a new Section Two added which is substantially different. The
intent has been stated that 10 percent of the total receipts go to
the Department for implementation of requirements of the Act. The
remaining 90 percent, depending on what classification the land is,
would go into their corresponding funds, and unclassified lands
would go into the Public School Trust Fund.
Another clarification was made to recreational land which the
Department asked to have left out, but they left it in because the
State has private recreational land.
The new Section Three deals with land that has fallen off the
counter. According to the drafter, Mr. Jerry Luckhaupt, the
appraisal and survey costs should cover any problems the Department
may have with lands that have fallen off the counter. If the only
problem has to do with their ability to have it appraised or
surveyed, this would allow the buyer to take on that
responsibility.
The Department would approve a list of licensed appraisers that are
familiar with appraising raw land.
Section Four lists specific lands that are exempt. Leases have
been changed slightly to say if you have a lease and that property
is going to be offered for sale, you have first right of refusal.
The third section of Section Four is the eligibility requirements
which are the same. There are some amendments regarding lands that
are to be offered. Ms. Jane Angvik, Director, Division of Lands,
asked them to not ask for an amount over 5,000 acres which seems to
be small. They have moved the date up to October 1 for the
Department to select not less than 15,000 acres, six months later
another 15,000 acres, and six months after that 20,000 acres to be
put on the counter for sale. The Department would then be allowed
to require the buyer to pay for the appraisal and survey and the
State could ask to be reimbursed for the survey. The Department
would then take an aggregate of 200,000 acres of land to be
designated open-to-entry and the staking requirements are not
changed from the last draft.
The rest of the bill is just about the same except for deleting the
mapping.
MS. KROGSENG said she understood why the Department thinks this
won't work, because out of 117 people who work for the Division of
Lands, there is only one person working on land disposal state-
wide. She has suggested that they borrow from some of their other
programs to assist in land disposals.
Number 244
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the CS to SB 108. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
MS. JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Lands, said they are opposed
to the bill as it is presently written. They have worked on
proposed language to use existing Title 38 programs to enhance land
disposal programs. Their biggest challenge has been a lack of
funding to do a land disposal program and the last one was done in
1985.
She said the program in SB 108 would overwhelm the market which
would end up in reduced land value for the State and the private
sector that would be selling land as well. They also believe there
will be conflicts in uses and think it is inadvisable to sell
forestry lands because the sustained yield principal established by
the State's Constitution indicates the State will sell land for
timber access predicated on what is the total of timber lands we
hold in the whole State. They also do not currently have a
classification called recreation and this proposal would sell
agricultural lands in exactly the same manner as every other kind
of land, fee simple. It would, therefore, defund the purpose of SB
109 that was adopted last year to provide some protection for the
continuation of agriculture lands in the State of Alaska.
Additionally, she believes it would very difficult to track the
amount of acres a person gathers in a life time. It would be very
difficult and expensive to try to implement the eligibility
requirements. Providing school might apply to the individuals who
purchase the land from the State, but it might not apply to anyone
they might eventually end up selling it to.
Finally, MS. ANGVIK said, the six percent interest rate is well
below market. Currently the State sells land at prime plus three
which was a provision in last year's change to Title 38. There are
some difficulties associated with the staking program that Mr.
Mylius would explain.
Number 303
MR. DICK MYLIUS, Division of Land, said he had two concerns with
proposed Section 38.14.050 (c) on page 5. There is a requirement
that purchasers may not stake within 100 yards of private land or
previously staked land and that would create slivers of land the
State would be left to manage which would be unmanageable and of
very little value to the State. Adjacent land owners would
eventually use those parcels, because they would be the only ones
who would have access to those areas. There is a provision that
allows an exception to that based on neighbors which would be
extremely difficult to enforce and expensive to deal with and he
preferred those restrictions to be removed from the bill.
There is also concern about the guidance the bill gives regarding
stream or water frontage. One sentence says not to exceed one
third of the total exterior boundary and the next says not
exceeding approximately four times its width.
MS. ANGVIK said the recommendations set out on page 4, line 24 for
disposal would be very difficult to achieve. She thought they
could do the 5,000 parcels they have in the course of a year and a
half, but they can't do all of the acreage in the bill in the time
frame allowed. To propose 200,000 for open-to-entry would cost a
significant amount of money. She said they want to be in the land
disposal business and she had submitted their modifications to
existing programs so they would produce land more efficiently. She
reminded them that there was a $300,000 capital improvement program
that had been submitted to the Legislature for consideration that
would assist them in underwriting the cost of land disposals. The
reason she has only one person dedicated to land disposal is
because it is not funded in her budget. If they give her the
money, she'll sell the land.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that Sections 8 and 9 of the Administration's
response make the existing programs that are not repealed work
better and are not in conflict. He thought they should be added to
the bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed with that and moved to amend SB 108 to
include those Sections 8 (38.05.0579f) and 9 (38.05.969) that were
handed out by DNR. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Angvik if she said they couldn't put out
15,000 acres of land by October 1.
MS. ANGVIK answered that they could put out the 5,000 parcels they
have in the course of a year, but she couldn't guarantee 15,000 by
October 1.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what size the parcels averaged.
MR. MYLIUS answered somewhere between five and 10.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he would be able to put out 2,000 of the
5,000 parcels by October 1.
MR. MYLIUS said it would be difficult to get any parcels by October
1, simply because they are carrying out a whole new land disposal
program.
MS. ANGVIK said it requires them to go through the five thousand
parcels. She explained that many of the parcels were offered and no
one purchased them or they have been returned to the State. The
Division has to go through the process of preparing materials for
the public so they are familiar with what is being offered.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if her objections about overwhelming the
market, other public uses and sustained yield of timber, and that
they might make agricultural lands fee simple are policy calls that
should be made by the legislature as opposed to the executive.
MS. ANGVIK said they are policy calls the legislature has already
made in existing statutes in 38.04 and 38.05, but this program
would be separate from them taking all lands and making them
different. Changing the policy is a decision the legislature is
entitled to make, but the Administration has not done that. The
Department is implementing the legislature's current policy.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they were opposing the legislation because
they are changing the policy they would have to carry out.
MS. ANGVIK replied she would carry out their policy; but, for
instance, if they are going to change agricultural lands to be sold
as fee simple without any provision that they be retained for
agricultural purposes (which would be the effect of this bill),
then it's her responsibility to advise them that the probability is
there would be no more agricultural lands in Alaska.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked her where she found that.
MS. ANGVIK explained the speculation the Division is making is
predicated on the experience both in Alaska and the outside that if
agricultural lands are not protected for agricultural purposes,
those lands that are located near communities (like Mat-Su) would
become more valuable for development than for agricultural
purposes. The taxation of the government would change to
accommodate that increased development and the agricultural land
owners would not be able to afford the taxation that would ensue.
Number 428
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they should use a similar restrictive
covenant for any land they sell and said apparently the free market
system is not allowed to work when it comes to what her Department
believes is a segment of the land base that they wish to preserve
and protect. He asked her how much land was available for
agricultural purposes.
MS. ANGVIK responded that the State of Alaska currently owns
600,000 acres of agricultural classified lands. She doesn't know
how much land is held privately available for sale in Alaska.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked of the 600,000 acres what is available for
sale today.
MR. MYLIUS responded that none of it is for sale and the reason is
because there is no staff to make it available for sale.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked who made that choice and answered that the
Director did.
MS. ANGVIK explained that the one person works on parson's rights
which are individuals who had an interest in the land before it
came to the State of Alaska. He has demonstrated under the terms
of existing State statutes that they are entitled to be able to
purchase it.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked for the agricultural covenant provision
statute number.
MR. MYLIUS answered AS 38.05.321.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the assumption in the bill was correct
about agricultural lands that are sold no longer being subject to
agricultural covenants.
MR. JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Drafter, answered that is a
correct statement.
Number 482
There are two ways to fix it: take out the agricultural land on
page 3, line 3 or include in the disclaimer "not withstanding any
other provision in this title other than..."
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he wanted agricultural land to be available,
but under the terms of the covenant to remain in agricultural use.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that he wanted agricultural land to be fee
simple owned, but he would yield because there are concerns about
preserving that socialistic covenant that has never worked well out
there. We end up with people stuck on land they can't earn a living
farming, but they have to somehow try to pay the State back for
loans to try a dream that never came true.
SENATOR GREEN asked if it would be appropriate to require that it
not be all one type of land in one place, but a variety of lands in
the selection they bring forward, so there is a mix.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved conceptually to say that if agricultural lands
are purchased, they have to abide by 321. There were no objections
and it was so ordered.
Number 532
SENATOR LINCOLN said of page 3, line 10 that it seemed as though
they just went in a circle by exempting disposals from requirements
of AS 38.04 and 38.05, but requiring prior public notice under the
State Constitution.
MR. LUCKHAUPT clarified that the Constitution doesn't refer to AS
38. He explained that the bill leaves it up to DNR to determine
what reasonable public notice is. They don't have to utilize the
procedures under AS 38.04. or 38.05. The disposals are basically
a self-contained system.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how they would provide the public notice, in
reference to page 4, line 30, of land to people who are off the
road system. How would they know about the sales if they weren't
getting a newspaper.
MS. ANGVIK said she wasn't sure, but they would make every effort
to communicate to people. They would probably give people 30 days
notice and use both electronic means and mailing to make it as
widespread as possible.
TAPE 98-22, SIDE B
MR. MYLIUS said they normally allow people to apply for land
through the mail, but requiring people to be physically present at
a specific location to buy a piece of land could be a potential
problem.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 108(RES) out of committee with
individual recommendations. SENATOR LINCOLN objected. SENATORS
GREEN, TAYLOR, LEMAN, TORGERSON, and HALFORD voted yes and the
motion was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:30.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|