01/31/2022 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB84 | |
| SB133 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 84 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 31, 2022
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Joshua Revak, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Natasha von Imhof
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 84
"An Act relating to the veterans' land purchase discount;
establishing state land vouchers; relating to the permanent fund
dividend; relating to the duties of the Department of Revenue;
authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to accept state
land vouchers; relating to eligibility for public assistance;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to the sale or lease of state land for remote
recreational sites; relating to permits for remote recreational
sites; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 84
SHORT TITLE: LAND VOUCHERS; PFDS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/12/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/21 (S) STA, RES, FIN
03/02/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/02/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/11/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/11/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/11/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/23/21 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/21 (S) Moved SB 84 Out of Committee
03/23/21 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/24/21 (S) STA RPT 2NR 3AM
03/24/21 (S) NR: SHOWER, COSTELLO
03/24/21 (S) AM: KAWASAKI, HOLLAND, REINBOLD
05/10/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/10/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/10/21 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/31/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 133
SHORT TITLE: REMOTE RECREATIONAL SITES; SALES; PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/28/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/28/21 (S) RES, FIN
04/28/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/05/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/31/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
BRIAN FECHTER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a slideshow on SB 84.
CHRISTY COLLES, Operations Manager
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on SB 84.
SHAWNDA O'BRIEN, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on SB 84.
EDWARD MARTIN, Representing Self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 84.
LAURA BOOMERSHINE, Legislative Liaison
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced Ms. Colles who gave an overview
of SB 133.
CHRISTY COLLES, Operations Manager
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an overview of SB 133.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:33:50 PM
CHAIR JOSHUA REVAK called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Stevens, Kawasaki, and Chair Revak.
SB 84-LAND VOUCHERS; PFDS
3:34:37 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 84
"An Act relating to the veterans' land purchase discount;
establishing state land vouchers; relating to the permanent fund
dividend; relating to the duties of the Department of Revenue;
authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to accept state
land vouchers; relating to eligibility for public assistance;
and providing for an effective date."
3:36:30 PM
BRIAN FECHTER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue,
Anchorage, Alaska, presented a slideshow on SB 84: PFD Land
Vouchers. He advanced to slide 1, SB 84 Creates the PFD Land
Voucher Program:
• PFD applicants can elect a land voucher in lieu of a
cash PFD
• Face value of the land voucher is 2x the statutory
formula value of the PFD
MR. FECHTER elaborated, stating a $3,000 statutory PFD would
result in a $6,000 land voucher.
• PFD Land Vouchers can be used to purchase state land
offered for sale by DNR
• Land vouchers have long historic precedent
• Payment to American Revolution veterans
MR. FECHTER said that from the American Revolution through WWII,
there is a precedent of giving land vouchers to veterans.
American Revolution soldiers received land vouchers as payment,
and WWII veterans received land vouchers in appreciation for
their service.
• Used at statehood by various states to distribute and
settle land
• Objective: Get State Land into the Hands of Alaskans
3:37:38 PM
MR. FECHTER advanced to Slide 2, Land Voucher Program Details:
• Vouchers can't be used to buy Mental Health Trust
lands
• Parents can't apply for vouchers for their children
MR. FECHTER stated that this policy encourages parents to
contribute to the Alaska 529 university savings plan rather than
apply for land vouchers on behalf of their children. Only adults
may apply for land vouchers.
• Vouchers can't be used to pay rents or fees just
sale price
MR. FECHTER stated that the voucher only applies to the initial
purchase price of the land.
• Vouchers only available to PFD applicants who use the
electronic application
MR. FECHTER said this is consistent with "Pick, Click, Give,
the education raffle, and other voluntary election programs.
• PFD applicants need to be determined eligible within
the PFD year
• Vouchers are transferable and never expire
MR. FECHTER explained that an individual may give away or sell a
land voucher to transfer ownership.
• Dept of Revenue will track voucher transfers, and will
replace lost, stolen or destroyed vouchers
• Vouchers may be garnished up to the value of the cash
PFD
MR. FECHTER offered a hypothetical example of how the land
voucher garnishment would work. Suppose the legislature
appropriates a $1,000 PFD, and the individual, who elects a land
voucher, owes $1,000 in unpaid child support. $1,000 cash will
go to the Child Support Division, and the individual will
receive what remains. The garnished land voucher will total the
value of the land voucher minus the garnished amount.
• Cash from PFDs not paid in cash because of voucher
election lapses to General Fund
• DHSS and other benefits programs must consider voucher
as income or resources in determining benefits
eligibility
3:39:41 PM
MR. FECHTER advanced to Slide 3, Lands in Alaskan Hands. He
stated that the Department of Natural Resources contributed this
slide.
Help fulfill the Alaska Constitution's mandate to
develop state resources to benefit the public.
Make Alaska land more accessible to all by making it
easier for Alaskans to purchase land.
No other state has less land in private hands than
Alaska.
The PFD Land Voucher Bill is a response to the demand,
by helping individual Alaskan's realize land
ownership.
The PFD Land Voucher Bill would be a win-win for both
the individual Alaskan and the state treasury.
MR. FECHTER reiterated that the purpose of SB 84 is to fulfill
the constitutional mandate to develop state resources for the
maximum benefit of the public. In stark contrast to Rhode
Island's 97 percent, private ownership of land in Alaska is only
three percent.
3:40:20 PM
MR. FECHTER advanced to slide 4, Cashflow Hypothetical. The
following numbers are hypothetical for illustrative purposes
only.
Cashflow Hypothetical
CY2022 Statutory PFD: $2,300/person
FY2023 Approp. PFD: $1,000/person
Land voucher: $4,600/person
Cash PFD elections: 600,000
Land voucher elections: 40,000
Amount appropriated
from ERA to GF to PFD Fund: $640mm
Cash PFDs: $600mm
Lapse to GF from unelected cash PFDs: $40mm
Face value of land vouchers: $184mm
Land ultimately sold: $300mm
Cash to GF from land sales: $116mm
Total Cash to GF: $156mm
MR. FECHTER explained that, in this hypothetical example, a
person elects $1,000 cash or a $4,600 land voucher. Suppose
40,000 individuals elect land vouchers. Of the $640,000,000
appropriated for PFDs, $600,000,000 will be distributed in cash
and $40,000,000 will lapse to the general fund. As land is
purchased, revenue generated from land sales will grow the
general fund over time.
3:41:20 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the assumption of induced effect
versus just putting more land up for sale.
MR. FECHTER answered that question brings up a major governor's
initiative. The governor has invested a lot of resources in the
Department of Natural Resources and has pressed the department
to maximize land sales. The governor wants unallocated lands
available for sale, so Alaskans can make purchases and
participate in sales.
MR. FECHTER stated that the department has not done an analysis
to determine the proportion of land sales that would occur with
or without this program. He expressed his belief that the
program would incentivize Alaskans to participate in land sales
and get more land in the hands of Alaskans. The ripple effects
of land sales are numerous, especially with property taxes in
organized communities.
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the hypothetical example proportions
are based on the average parcel value, one voucher applied per
parcel, multiple vouchers applied per parcel, or anything in
particular. He asked how the figure, $300,000,000 for the amount
of land sold, was derived.
MR. FECHTER answered that this is an illustrative example of how
the cash flow would work. Absent an accurate number to put in
front of the committee, illustrative numbers, not backed by
science, were used.
3:43:58 PM
SENATOR STEVENS commented that lands available for purchase over
the years have not always been in desirable areas. He asked what
process the department uses to announce land sales, whether this
sale would be more significant than in the past, and how to
select and purchase land.
MR. FECHTER deferred the question to Ms. Colles, Division of
Mining, Land, and Water, Department of Natural Resources.
3:44:39 PM
CHRISTY COLLES, Operations Manager, Division of Mining, Land,
and Water, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska,
provided invited testimony on SB 84. The department has over-
the-counter sales comprised of unsold auction parcels and unsold
parcels from the remote recreational staking cabin program sale.
MS. COLLES said auctions are the main way the department
notifies the public of a land sale. The department identifies
land, ensures it is properly classified and develops
subdivisions with road access. The department determines a
starting price based on an appraisal, for which individuals may
submit bids. Lands are available across the state, and auctions
occur once every year.
MS. COLLES explained that the remote recreational cabin staking
program works differently than an auction. The department
identifies a large area, and a limited number of individuals are
allowed to stake 5 to 20 acres of land. It is a competitive
process because the program may limit the number of
authorizations in certain areas. So, there may be more interest
than parcels available.
MS. COLLES said auctions and remote recreational cabin staking
go through a decision process and are available online for
individuals to place a bid.
3:46:35 PM
SENATOR STEVENS surmised that if SB 84 were to pass, it would
generate a lot of interest in and applications for state lands.
He asked whether the department was prepared to identify more
lands or if the availability of land will remain status quo.
MS. COLLES answered that there are limitations with the current
statutes, but the goal is to make more land available. The
governor has introduced a couple of bills to increase the
availability of land.
3:47:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked what proportion of the state's sales price
the state uses to prepare parcels for sale through auction or
over the counter. The purpose of the question is to compare
preparation costs incurred by individuals against costs incurred
by the state.
MS. COLLES answered that an exact percentage depends. The
department puts a lot upfront into subdivision sales, including
appraisals and surveys. The sale price reflects those costs. She
stated that through the land disposal income fund (LDIF), the
department tries to cover the cost of all employees that
administer the program, including appraisal and survey costs.
The department tries to redeposit recouped expenditures back
into the LDIF to fund future projects.
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the mean, median, and mode parcel sale
proportions would be helpful as a follow-up.
CHAIR REVAK requested that the department provide the
information to the committee.
3:49:18 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to Mr. Fechter's hypothetical example
that outlined the garnishment process for land vouchers. He
asked why the multiplier applied to the land voucher's issuance
is not similar to its reduction.
MR. FECHTER answered that this was a policy decision. In SB 84,
the cash value set aside for individuals is less than the land
voucher value. Garnishing the total value of the land voucher
might cause the PFD fund to go underwater.
MR. FECHTER explained that the maximum amount a PFD may be
garnished is not to exceed the appropriated value of the PFD.
The idea is to have a level playing field so that the maximum
amount deductible is the same for any PFD, whether a cash PFD or
a land voucher.
SENATOR KIEHL inquired further into the possible imbalance of
the land voucher garnishment calculation in SB 84. An individual
with a partially garnished PFD comes out way ahead of those
whose PFD is not garnished. The garnished individual gets their
debt satisfied and almost the full voucher amount. They get the
full multiplier on the plus side without the multiplier on the
minus side.
MR. FECHTER answered that is accurate. The physical asset, the
land voucher, could be garnished by implementing a garnishment
process. However, it is much more valuable to the garnishing
agency to satisfy a debt with cash. While the land voucher has
intrinsic value, it is more challenging to turn it into cash to
satisfy a debt.
3:51:51 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked whether the land vouchers would be
transferable.
MR. FECHTER answered yes. Individuals may sell their land
vouchers for whatever someone is willing to pay, or they can
give them away.
CHAIR REVAK asked who would create and oversee the land voucher
program, including the prevention of fraud and counterfeit
vouchers.
MR. FECHTER answered that the state would benefit from its
existing, robust PFD application process as a control to verify
identity, prevent scams, and ensure security, are already in
place. The Department of Revenue (DOR) envisions holding
vouchers in a database. DOR will verify a person's identity in
the event of a voucher exchange. DOR will track certificate
holders, so holders must report voucher transfers. The
certificate itself is just a piece of paper; it is not a bearer
instrument. The database will contain certificate ownership data
and data on the number of vouchers redeemed. DOR will work with
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to track the outcome
of all its land sales.
CHAIR REVAK commented a paper certificate opens up an
opportunity for fraud. He asked whether land vouchers would have
a digital tracking mechanism.
MR. FECHTER answered that the paper certificate associates the
voucher owner with a unique identifying number and gives the
owner a tangible record to possess. The core balance of vouchers
would be kept with DOR and tracked digitally. An individual
could not steal a voucher by merely taking possession of the
paper certificate.
3:55:02 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said that this is a great idea, but if there is
no more land than currently available, the state will not wind
up with more money in the treasury. He expressed his belief that
the obligation is to identify more land to sell; he hoped the
administration would attempt to do so.
MR. FECHTER answered that is precisely the intent. He expressed
his belief that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) spoke
earlier about a series of bills that would remove barriers to
making land available. He deferred to DNR to speak more about
those bills.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that it is a lot of work, and he hopes
the administration achieves its goal.
3:55:52 PM
CHAIR REVAK expressed concern that the $40,000 [$40.6 per OMB
Component Number 981] operating budget expense indicated on the
fiscal note is insufficient. He asked what software the
Department of Revenue intends to implement to track land voucher
activity and land voucher transfers. He wondered whether the
department would require additional staff to track vouchers,
prevent fraud, and prevent counterfeiting.
MR. FECHTER answered that the amount is in line with the last
major PFD election program. Raffle programming changes required
$20,000 to $40,000. DOR has a dedicated IT team that uses EDIUS,
the backend software for the PFD eligibility system. He
expressed his belief that the existing software could easily
integrate the land voucher program. DOR does not know the demand
for the land voucher program but does not envision half the
applicants choosing the land voucher election the first year. As
the program moves forward, DOR may come back to the legislature
if the program becomes a burden.
3:57:26 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that various assistance programs would
consider land vouchers as income and resources. A fiscal note
indicates that the Division of Public Assistance estimates a
one-time mailing to its clients to notify them of the land
voucher's impact on their eligibility for public assistance
programs. He asked why this notification could not be sent every
year.
SHAWNDA O'BRIEN, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services, Juneau, Alaska,
provided invited testimony on SB 84. She expressed her belief
that the division could automate the notification system to send
a standardized notification to new program recipients. The cost
would fluctuate depending on the number of new recipients in the
program. The $140,000 [139.8 per OMB Component Number 236]
ballpark fiscal note estimate is based on the number of
recipients currently in the division's program.
SENATOR KIEHL commented that, in his experience, recipients at
the edge of the income ladder for these programs are working,
not unemployed. He emphasized that it is difficult for these
recipients to work multiple jobs, get food on the table, and get
the kids to school. He asked what the education success rate is
when the requirements of a program change; in other words, how
effective is the uptake from one letter for one notice.
MS. O'BRIEN answered that the educational part of the process
mostly happens during the program's interview stage. Many
programs require an interview with recipients to cover details
like fraud, changes that require reporting, and other items. It
is a hands-on, face-to-face opportunity to educate recipients
about the program's rules and how changes affect them. Message
repetition is often more successful in multiple venues, like
incorporating a message into a written notification to build on
the same message given in an interview.
4:01:04 PM
CHAIR REVAK inquired about the land voucher garnishment process,
asking whether the deduction would occur on the land voucher
instead of the PFD.
MR. FECHTER answered yes. Everyone would have the same level of
garnishment whether an individual selects cash or voucher. The
individual would receive the balance after the garnishment.
Suppose an individual elects a land voucher, has a $1,000
garnishment, and the cash value of the PFD is $1,000. The
individual would receive the total value of the land voucher
minus $1,000.
CHAIR REVAK repeated the garnishment process and questioned
whether the calculation method was equitable.
MR. FECHTER reiterated that if the cash value of the PDF is
$1,000, an individual, who owes back child support and elects a
cash PFD, could be garnished up to $1,000 to satisfy their debt.
The same is true for an individual who elects a land voucher. Up
to $1,000 could be garnished from the value of their land
voucher to satisfy up to $1,000 of their debt.
CHAIR REVAK asked whether the proposed garnishment method would
affect state garnishment receipts.
MR. FECHTER expressed his belief that it would not affect state
receipts. The net effect is the same whether an individual
elects a land voucher or a cash PFD.
4:04:25 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced that the committee had received department
answers to previous questions.
CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 84.
4:04:44 PM
EDWARD MARTIN, Representing Self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 84. He played previously recorded testimony,
stating the PFD land voucher was an idea he dreamed up years ago
when the state was faced with $9 per barrel of oil and the state
government attempted to access the permanent fund dividend. He
expressed his belief that it was inappropriate then and is not
appropriate now. The permanent fund dividend belongs to the
people. As it concerns transferability, a parent could transfer
land to their children in a trust. He recommended the program be
open exclusively to Alaskans. Alaska has been a state for far
too long without making land available. The state will generate
tremendous revenue when land development creates a tax base. He
suggested a simpler method to purchase land, mainly using
unencumbered PFD money to make a land purchase.
4:09:48 PM
CHAIR REVAK closed public testimony on SB 84.
4:10:00 PM
CHAIR REVAK held SB 84 in committee.
SB 133-REMOTE RECREATIONAL SITES; SALES; PERMITS
4:10:05 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to the sale or lease of state land for remote
recreational sites; relating to permits for remote recreational
sites; and providing for an effective date."
4:10:33 PM
At ease.
4:11:29 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting.
4:11:34 PM
LAURA BOOMERSHINE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Natural
Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, introduced Ms. Colles who gave an
overview of SB 133.
4:12:16 PM
CHRISTY COLLES, Operations Manager, Division of Mining, Land,
and Water, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska,
gave an overview of SB 133. Ms. Colles began the overview with
slide 2, What's in SB 133 Overview:
• Repeals existing RRCS program and reenacts the Remote
Recreational Sites (RRS) program
• Establishes the ability for individuals to purchase,
lease or permit RRS
MS. COLLES said that the biggest difference between the RRS
program and the Remote Recreational Cabin Site (RRCS) staking
program is that RRS allows an Alaskan to permit a site, purchase
a site, lease it for a term longer than previously allowed, and
remain in the lease without purchasing.
• Provides for Commissioner to identify areas where land
is properly classified and offer those lands for
staking of RRS
• Provides for Alaskans to nominate lands for inclusion
4:14:00 PM
MS. COLLES explained that an individual may nominate
unclassified lands. The department will review the nomination to
determine whether reclassification is necessary to allow for a
remote recreational staking opportunity.
• Identifies who is eligible to participate in the
program
MS. COLLES stated that this program is open to Alaskan residents
who:
- Can show residency in Alaska for one year, and
- Have not participated in the program in the last ten years. An
individual may participate in the program once every ten years.
• Establishes that a 10-acre parcel size may be staked
MS. COLLES clarified that an individual may stake less than 10
acres, but the maximum is 10 acres.
• Process for handling conflicting staked parcels
MS. COLLES stated that if multiple individuals stake the same
ground, an established conflict resolution process will resolve
staking disputes. The process determines who retains the staked
parcel and who should re-stake additional acreage.
• Directs the Commissioner to establish regulations to
implement the program
4:15:39 PM
MS. COLLES advanced to slide 3, What's in SB 133 - Leasing and
Sale:
• Establishes process for staking, leasing,
and/or purchasing a piece of state land
square4 Stake parcel, submit a sketch, and an application to
lease
MS. COLLES said that the lease application is the first step in
either a purchase or a long-term lease. First, an individual
must stake the parcel, then submit a sketch of the staked
property. The details for leasing and purchasing are below.
• Process for leasing a remote recreational site
square4 Initial 10-year leasing period
square4 Two additional 10-year lease renewal periods
square4 Restricts assignment of a lease
square4 Termination of lease for non-compliance
square4 Establishes timeframe for surveying and appraising
square4 Requirement for marking of parcel boundaries
MS. COLLES stated that an individual may lease up to 30 years.
The idea is to have a site for recreational purposes, not
monetary or profit-oriented ones. The lease may be assigned
through an estate or a will but not sold. Unpaid fees and
commercial business operations are examples of non-compliance
and cause for termination of the lease. Regulations would
establish the stipulations for compliance. The timeframe to
complete a site survey and appraisal is 24 months, but the
department could authorize additional time. Before completing
the survey, the lessee must mark the parcel boundaries outlined
in SB 133. Marked, clear boundaries will help future stakers
avoid overlapping parcels.
• Process for purchase of state land for RRS
square4 Sale price is fair market value
square4 Applicant must survey and appraise the site
MS. COLLES stated that a lessee may purchase the site at fair
market value. The same appraisal used to apply for the lease may
be reused to purchase the site; this option is available for 24
months. Once 24 months have elapsed, the division would require
a new appraisal. The staker is responsible for the cost of a
survey and appraisal.
4:18:52 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that individuals start with good
intentions but do not always get the parcel. He asked if the
department agrees that the most significant obstacle to the
success of remote staking programs is the cost of survey and
appraisal.
MS. COLLES agreed that the department had issues with previous
programs when the cost of the survey and appraisal was entirely
the applicant's responsibility. Currently, the RRS program is
large tract-based, meaning parcels in a given area are available
in bulk amounts with limited staking authorizations. The
department covers the actual cost of going out and doing the
survey and appraisal, but the stakers still bear the cost. She
acknowledged there is some concern about costs, but the hope is
that the survey and appraisal will be affordable with the larger
parcels.
4:21:00 PM
MS. COLLES continued with slide 4, What's in SB 133 Permits,
stating this is an entirely new approach from the past to remote
recreational staking sites. The department has not had permits
recently. The personal use cabin program was repealed, but the
department still has managed cabin permits on the books. SB 133
allows individuals that are not ready to purchase, to get an RRS
permit:
• Establishes process for permitting an RRS
• 25-year term
MS. COLLES compared the duration of the proposed 25-year RRS
permit term to the considerably shorter 5-year commercial permit
and six-year personal use cabin permit. The permit term for this
authorization is much longer.
• Revocable at will
MS. COLLES said that the RRS permit is revocable at will because
it is not a disposal. If necessary, for any reason, the option
to revoke the permit remains available to the state.
• May not be assigned or renewed
• May be terminated for any reason, including failure
to use the permitted land as required by the terms
of the permit
MS. COLLES explained that the department may terminate the
permit for a noncompliance issue, such as:
- nonpayment
- permit used for commercial purposes, in which case, the
permittee might need to switch to a commercial use permit.
• Permit holder may apply to lease or purchase the
permitted site
MS. COLLES stated that during the 25-year permit term, the
individual may apply to lease or purchase. The permittee might
have to go through the nomination process to reclassify the RRS,
which would require the commissioner's recommendation.
4:23:12 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked for more detail about "revocable at will.
MS. COLLES answered that all the permits are considered
revocable at will. She emphasized that revocations occur for
cause, not haphazardly. For example, if it were in the state's
best interest to utilize a permit for a large infrastructure or
access project, the state would consider the permit a revocable
interest. Conversely, a lease or sale would require the
agreement of the landowner.
MS. COLLES outlined the process to revoke a permit. The
department:
- notifies the individual,
- the department works with the individual, and
- the department looks for ways to work around the property.
She emphasized that permits are not, in no way, a disposal of
state interests.
CHAIR REVAK commented that the Department of Natural Resources
acts responsibly with its revocable at will decisions; however,
inholding issues exist with the state's federal partners.
4:25:12 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked how much land is transferred to Alaskans
annually under the current remote recreational cabin program.
MS. COLLES answered that since 2001, the state had 14 offerings
and 81 staking areas. She defined offerings as public
notification that land is available to stake. Of the 14
offerings, 807 parcels were sold, totaling 50,462 acres.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that in 22 years, 807 parcels are not
that many sales. He sought assurance that the data was correct.
MS. COLLES answered that is correct; the number of parcels sold
was 807. She noted that currently, 5 to 20 acres per parcel are
available for staking. She referenced slide 13 to show remote
recreational cabin site parcels offered in the past. She noted
that East Fork Pass had 16,350 acres with a maximum of 60
staking authorizations, so up to 1,200 acres (60 staking
authorizations multiplied by a 20-acre staking maximum) were
available for staking. The idea is to give an individual enough
space to retain the remote setting, in contrast to subdivision
sales which share lot lines.
SENATOR STEVENS calculated the sales average is about 20 parcels
[37 parcels] per year. He asked if the goal was to increase the
number of sales.
MS. COLLES answered yes. The goal is to identify areas and
constantly put out as much land as possible. The department
seeks areas that are desirable to purchasers. It takes time to
sort out issues, research area plans, work with communities, and
go through a best interest finding, which is a two-step
decision. This bill proposes to exempt the best-interest
finding, as required by AS 38.05.035, in lieu of maybe a less
extensive decision document. Public notice would continue to be
required but not at the current level, because it could delay
projects currently in development.
SENATOR STEVENS re-asked how many parcels and acres were sold in
the remote recreational cabin program since 2001.
MS. COLLES answered that 50,462 acres and 807 parcels were sold
since 2001. Slide 11, History of the Current Remote Recreational
Cabin Site Program, shows these figures.
4:29:21 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the average size of those RRCS
parcels.
MS. COLLES replied that she needed a moment to calculate the
average parcel size.
SENATOR KIEHL calculated that the average size of an RRCS parcel
is over 60 acres. He concluded that a problem exists with the
figures as the maximum parcel size in the RRCS program is
limited to 20 acres.
MS. COLLES agreed. She stated that she would check the figures.
CHAIR REVAK requested that Ms. Colles send corrected figures to
the committee.
SENATOR KIEHL noted that in 21 years, 807 parcels were sold. He
asked, of those 807 parcels, how many were staked.
MS. COLLES replied that she would get that information to the
committee.
4:30:40 PM
MS. COLLES advanced to slide 5, SB 133 Provides Multiple Ways
for Alaskans to Procure a Piece of Alaska. This slide summarizes
what SB 133 proposes to accomplish:
• The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will
maintain a list of lands available for Remote
Recreational Sites (RRS)
MS. COLLES stated that the RRS available lands list would
include vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved (VUU) land. The
inclusion of VUU lands will result in a bigger area.
• The State will identify areas where land is properly
classified for settlement and may be staked for RRS
• Individuals can nominate open state land not included
in the annual state offering for RRS
MS. COLLES stated that Alaskans may nominate areas not properly
classified for inclusion in the program. The nomination entitles
an individual right of priority to the parcel. The individual
must stake the parcel within 90 days and submit a lease
application with an attached sketch to retain first right. If
the individual fails to fulfill the bill's requirements, the
commissioner will include the land with the commissioner's
regularly scheduled annual offerings.
4:31:49 PM
MS. COLLES pointed out that SB 133 proposes the following three-
tier system to increase an individual's ability to procure a
site.
• Multiple ways to procure a site:
square4 Purchase
MS. COLLES explained that an individual may purchase a site.
However, if the fair market value is not affordable, an
individual may opt to remain in a lease. The option to purchase
remains open for the term of the lease.
square4 Lease
MS. COLLES explained that an individual could lease longer. The
lessee can enjoy the land well beyond the period of time it took
to prove up with a survey and appraisal.
square4 Permit
4:32:32 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that the map on slide 6 highlights an
area of Douglas Island popular with deer hunters, berry pickers,
and snowmobilers. He asked how the land nomination would work
without a best interest finding, whether the department
decisions were appealable, and how a community would weigh in on
a nomination.
MS. COLLES answered that the constitution requires public
notice. AS 38.05.035 defines the process for disposals through a
written finding. The department will continue to conduct public
notice of its actions. The commissioner will still have to study
the areas on the Statewide VUU Map, slide 6. The commissioner
will be required to verify the land is classified correctly and
provide public notice of the nomination and intent to lease
those lands to eligible Alaskans. There will still be a process,
but it will not be the same process the department currently
uses for its land sales program.
SENATOR KIEHL commented that a best interest finding could be
challenged all the way to court. He asked if this process would
be subject to the same sort of appeal right.
MS. COLLES answered any department decision is appealable. Even
permit decisions, which do not dispose of state interests, are
appealable. She stated that unless she is missing something, any
department decision is appealable, and she expressed her belief
that the Department of Law would agree.
4:35:20 PM
CHAIR REVAK stated that permits are revocable at will. He
expressed his belief that the department wants to avoid
controversial situations.
MS. COLLES stated one positive of the permit option is that
permits are revocable. So, if the department issued a permit in
error, the department has the authority to revoke it. It is more
difficult to revoke a lease. The scenario is completely
different for a sale which is more difficult to revoke. A court
ruling can overturn a department's decision. Most of the time,
an appeal stays the decision, so the department suspends action
until the administrative process is complete.
4:36:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether a transition from permit to lease is
also publicly noticed and subject to a decisional document.
MS. COLLES answered that the department follows the process
outlined in the lease. Nominated land that is not properly
classified must go through a classification process. Whether or
not a permit to lease transaction is publicly noticed or subject
to a decisional document would be decided on a cases-by-case
basis. Determining factors would include the location of the
permit, how it is classified, and whether the commissioner's
identified lands include the permitted site.
CHAIR REVAK asked Senator Kiehl if he had a follow-up question.
SENATOR KIEHL said that the Department of Law might be able to
provide details and information on the standards that apply to
public notice and decisional documents when a parcel transitions
from a permit to a lease.
4:37:54 PM
MS. COLLES advanced to slide 6, Statewide VUU Map. She stated
that approximately 47,000,000 acres of state land are considered
VUU and could be part of this program.
4:38:28 PM
CHAIR REVAK requested a detailed map.
MS. COLLES answered that the department is conserving resources
until the bill advances further in the legislative process to
create a detailed map. She stated that, in the meantime, a
better map will be piecemealed together to provide more clarity.
4:39:44 PM
CHAIR REVAK held SB 133 in committee.
4:40:02 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Revak adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DB 84 DOR Response Letter 1.31.2022.msg |
SRES 1/31/2022 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 84 Fiscal Note DHSS 1.28.2022.pdf |
SRES 1/31/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 84 Department of Revenue Presentation 1.31.2022.pdf |
SRES 1/31/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 84 Fiscal Note DNR 1.28.2022.pdf |
SRES 1/31/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 84 Fiscal Note DoR 1.28.2022.pdf |
SRES 1/31/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 84 Sectional Analysis 1.31.2022.pdf |
SRES 1/31/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 84 |
| SB 133 DNR Presentation 1.31.22.pdf |
SRES 1/31/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 133 |