Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/04/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB307 | |
| HB29 | |
| HB446 | |
| HB326 | |
| HB57 | |
| HB419 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 307 | ||
| + | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 446 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 326 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 419 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 57(FIN)
"An Act relating to the sale of certain state land to
adjacent landowners."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
9:58:50 AM
TERRY HARVEY, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, the
bill's sponsor, explained the bill would revise State Statute to
allow the Department of Natural Resources to negotiate with a
private landowner the sale of a parcel of State land, 20 acres
or smaller, which was surrounded by land held by that private
landowner. These land parcels are unique in that the only access
to these parcels would be through the private landowners
property. This negatively impacts the ability of the State to
sell the land to another entity.
Mr. Harvey noted that Representative Weyhrauch has been working
with Representative Bill Thomas in regards to such a parcel of
land in Haines, which is in Representative Thomas's election
district. A person in Haines has been working for 30 years on
developing his land for a mining operation, which would be open
to the public. That individual's property completely surrounds a
pre-Statehood mining claim that has reverted to State ownership.
The individual in this situation "should be allowed to work
directly with the State," as it would remove the burden of
advertising and survey work he would be required to pay for were
he to attempt to purchase the land through the typical State
land disposal process.
10:00:27 AM
Mr. Harvey noted that Dick Mylius, Director, Division of Mining,
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources, was available
to answer technical questions about the bill. Sarah Gilbertson
with the Department of Fish and Game was also available to
address public access issues that might arise were the State to
engage in such a sale. The Haines landowner, John Schnabel, was
also available to discuss his situation.
10:01:03 AM
Senator Bunde asked whether a survey would be required on such
parcels.
Mr. Harvey assumed a survey would be required. However, the
direct negotiation sale process would forego the advertising and
other requirements for someone in Mr. Schnabel's position.
Senator Bunde, agreeing to the uniqueness of there being State
land surrounded by privately held land, asked whether other
private landowners were seeking to acquire such land.
Mr. Harvey understood there were other cases, however, Mr.
Schnabel was the only one seeking to purchase such land at this
time.
That being the case, Senator Bunde declared this "seems to be
kinda pushing the edge of special interest legislation".
Co-Chair Green asked whether this situation might be referred to
as "an in-holding".
Mr. Harvey responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Green characterized this situation as "a reverse in-
holding". There are numerous parcels of "in-holding" land in the
State with access issues.
10:02:40 AM
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference
from an offnet location. This legislation would change the
State's "preference rights" statutes. Typically State land is
sold through a competitive process through which any Alaskan
could participate. However, "preference rights are the
exception" as they allow the State to negotiate a sale with one
individual. Typically this process is utilized when an
individual legally occupies the land and has made significant
investments on the property.
Mr. Mylius stated that the preference rights process could be
expanded to allow State land, which is surrounded by privately
held land, such as the aforementioned land in Haines, to be
sold. Such land would be unattractive to others, as it is
inaccessible.
Mr. Mylius stated that this legislation would include such land
in an existing "remnant" preference rights statute that allows
the State to negotiate the sale of a small parcel of land within
a municipality to an individual. A best use interest finding,
land survey, and appraisal would be required, and the land would
be sold at fair market value. He noted that the Haines land
exceeds the parcel size currently specified in the statute. A
survey has already been conducted on the parcel.
Mr. Mylius noted that, while the land in Haines is the only
known parcel, there could be others, considering the size of the
State and the amount of land the State owns.
Senator Bunde questioned the claim that such land would be
inaccessible, as he understood an existing State law would
require granting right-of-way access to land.
10:06:32 AM
Mr. Mylius clarified that the law was specific to land sold by
the State; the State would be required to insure there was legal
access to any land it sold. A private landowner would not be
required to provide legal access to land sold by the State; the
purchaser would be required to negotiate directly with the
private landowner for access. He was unsure whether the access
requirement was required by State law, as the Department of
Natural Resources provides access to land it sells as a matter
of policy.
Senator Bunde asked whether the land might qualify for access
under the provisions of the State's RS 2477 rights-of-way
project.
Mr. Mylius understood there was a RS 2477 route near or on the
Haines parcel. Its exact location has not been confirmed, as it
has not been surveyed. While RS 2477 "would provide trail
access, one of the problems with RS 2477 is it's not unlimited
access" and there are other [unspecified] RS 2477 restrictions.
Thus, it is unclear as to whether the RS 2477 access would be
sufficient to allow development of the land. While the route is
recognized under State law, it has not been recognized by the
court system and thus, at this point, could not be relied upon
to provide legal access to the land.
Senator Bunde appreciated Mr. Schnabel's situation, however,
suggested the bill be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee
so his concern about whether this was special interest
legislation could be addressed.
10:08:50 AM
Senator Stedman furthered Senator Bunde's access question, by
asking whether "prescriptive easements", which are used to
acquire access across property that is privately owned, could be
utilized in these cases.
10:09:27 AM
Mr. Mylius, noting he was not proficient in the subject of
prescriptive easements (PEs), explained that the court must
approve PEs. The Court would require seven to ten years of
actual documented use as well as documentation proclaiming that
no one had attempted to block the access. Nothing like that has
been filed in the Haines case. The Department could attempt to
establish a PE, however, it would be "a time consuming and
expensive process" with an unforeseeable outcome.
Senator Stedman informed the Committee that, while the
Department felt there could be other similar parcels like the
Haines land, no inventory of parcels had been provided when the
bill was heard in the Senate Resources Committee.
Co-Chair Green assumed there could be other parcels of land to
which this bill would apply, particularly in areas where road
construction has occurred.
Senator Olson understood that the bill's previous committee of
referral had considered an amendment sponsored by Senator Ralph
Seekins.
Mr. Harvey communicated that it was not until after the bill
reported from the Senate Resources Committee, that the sponsor
became aware Senator Seekins had some legal concerns pertaining
to the differences between a direct preference sale to an
individual and the State's typical land disposal process.
Representative Weyhrauch understood that the Senator's concerns
arose because he did not have the benefit of hearing Mr. Mylius'
testimony. No amendments have been requested.
Co-Chair Green opined that the key language in the bill is that
"the director 'may' allow the land" in question to be sold to
the adjoining landowner through the direct preference sale
option. This language is located in Section 1(7) page 3 lines 1
though 11 of the bill. In other words, the director would
determine whether to allow this process to transpire.
Mr. Harvey noted that Sarah Gilbertson with the Department of
Fish and Game would explain the efforts taken to address public
access concerns.
10:13:25 AM
SARAH GILBERTSON, Special Assistant to the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game, announced that the Department is
aware of numerous parcels of land in the State to which this
legislation could apply. Some of these parcels "are State owned
land that is adjacent to a waterway" such as a stream or river.
The surrounding land is either privately or federally owned in
these cases. The Department's primary concern with these parcels
of land was to preserve Alaskans' ability to access the water.
Ms. Gilbertson stated that the Department's concerns were
addressed by adding the requirement that a best interests
finding be determined, as specified in Section 1(7)(b)(A) on
page 3 line 5 of the bill. The inclusion of the best interest
findings would ensure that the access to waterways issue would
be addressed.
Co-Chair Green asked for confirmation that the addition of that
language appeased the concerns of the Department.
Ms. Gilbertson affirmed.
AT EASE 10:14:54 AM / 10:15:58 AM
Co-Chair Green appreciated the work that has been conducted on
the issue.
10:16:26 AM
JOHN SCHNABEL, the owner of 84 acres of land surrounding the
State parcel in Haines, testified via teleconference from an
offnet location. His attempts to purchase the State parcel began
in 1980, and the effort has been very challenging. He pointed
out that in separate efforts to purchase other State land via
the public outcry auction, he was held financially responsible
for the land surveys and advertising notices. Even though he had
paid those expenses, other people had the right to bid against
him without any financial obligation.
Mr. Schnabel said he planned to develop the 84 acres into a
wilderness and gold panning experience for tourists. His concern
is that a conflicting activity might present itself on the 13-
acres parcel of land within his development, were it sold to
another individual at an outcry auction. This bill would assist
in making his development plans "secure".
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
Without objection, CS SS HB 57(FIN) was REPORTED from Committee
with previous indeterminate fiscal note #1 dated April 4, 2006
from the Department of Natural Resources.
10:18:30 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|