Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/09/2022 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR23 | |
| SB177 | |
| HB120 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 120-STATE LAND SALES AND LEASES; RIVERS
2:02:38 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to state land; relating
to the authority of the Department of Education and Early
Development to dispose of state land; relating to the authority
of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
dispose of state land; relating to the authority of the
Department of Natural Resources over certain state land;
relating to the state land disposal income fund; relating to the
leasing and sale of state land for commercial development;
repealing establishment of recreation rivers and recreation
river corridors; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee was the proposed CS, Version 32-GH1634\G, Bullard,
4/22/22 ("Version G"), adopted as the working document on
5/2/22.]
2:03:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Version G of
HB 120, labeled 32-GH1634\G.2, Bullard, 5/5/22, which read:
Page 1, lines 1 - 7:
Delete "relating to access roads; relating to
state land; relating to contracts for the sale of
state land; relating to the authority of the
Department of Education and Early Development to
dispose of state land; relating to the authority of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
to dispose of state land; relating to the authority of
the Department of Natural Resources over certain state
land; relating to the state land disposal income fund;
relating to the leasing and sale of state land;
relating to covenants and restrictions on agricultural
land;"
Page 1, line 10, through page 13, line 19:
Delete all material.
Page 13, line 20:
Delete "Sec. 17"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 15, line 16:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:03:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained Amendment 1 would delete all the
land sale language in the bill, leaving intact the Alaska Native
Vietnam veteran land exchange provision, which has a sense of
urgency and a broad appeal. He maintained the bill is two bills
combined in one: a very broad land sale bill kind of tied to a
Vietnam veteran land exchange. One part of the bill is somewhat
controversial with lots of important policy questions, he
stated, which is very different in nature from the Vietnam
veteran land exchange. He said his preference is that the
Alaska Native Vietnam veterans land exchange be advanced rapidly
and to leave the thorny land sale issues for later
consideration.
2:04:58 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responded that DNR
believes all the provisions within the bill are important issues
dealing with state land. He said DNR agrees that the Alaska
Native Vietnam veteran portion is an important part of this
bill, which is why the administration put it forward, but DNR
believes that all the provisions are appropriate to go forward.
2:04:54 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER [objected to Amendment 1].
2:06:11 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fields, Hopkins,
Hannan, and Schrage voted in favor of Amendment 1 to Version G
of HB 120. Representatives McKay, Cronk, Rauscher, Gillham, and
Patkotak voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be
adopted by a vote of 4-5.
2:06:54 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:06 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.
2:10:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Version G of
HB 120, labeled 32-GH1634\G.3, Bullard, 5/5/22, which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "relating to access roads;"
Page 1, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "relating to the authority of the
Department of Education and Early Development to
dispose of state land;"
Page 1, line 10, through page 3, line 31:
Delete all material.
Page 4, line 1:
Delete "Sec. 3"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:10:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained Amendment 2. He recounted that
in a previous hearing the committee discussed the different land
disposal processes for the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), and DNR. He said Version G would authorize
DEED, DOT&PF, and DNR to sell land through some new processes,
and he is concerned because these proposed processes are not the
same for each department and will not produce the same degree of
competitiveness in disposal of property and therefore return to
the state. He said the proposed processes also have differences
in terms of degree to which the public feels like it has notice
and input on disposal. The concept in Amendment 2, he
explained, is that if land is going to be disposed more quickly,
it should be via a consistent process through DNR. Under
Amendment 2, he continued, the expedited land disposal process
would remain the same for DNR as is contemplated in Version G;
however, land disposals for DEED and DOT&PF would be done
through DNR, which is consistent with what happens now. He said
it's important the public get a good return on the high value
parcels held by DEED and DOT&PF, and that is more likely to be
had through DNR. He stated that he doesn't want to have
inconsistent land disposal processes across departments.
2:12:33 PM
KRISTIN "KRIS" HESS, Deputy Director, Division of Mining, Land
and Water (DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
responded that DEED has a written process, goes through a public
process, and gets the most value for its properties. She said
disposals must be evaluated and approved by the [Alaska State
Board of Education & Early Development]. So, she continued,
DEED has a process similar to DNR's process for selling or
disposing of land that is no longer necessary to meet their
needs. Regarding roads, she related that DNR worked with the
Alaska Municipal League (AML) and received support for that
process.
2:13:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS offered closing comments on Amendment 2.
He said he knows DNR manages a lot more land than do the other
agencies, but that the lands under DEED and DOT&PF could be very
high value parcels because of their proximity to roads and other
infrastructure. He stated he wants to ensure these lands are
used for the best public purpose and, if that is private
commercial development, then there should be public input and
best yield received for that asset.
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected to Amendment 2. He said there
are other moving pieces to the processes.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Ms. Hess to provide further detail
regarding AML's support and the provisions outlined on pages 1-3
regarding the DEED and DOT&PF disposal process.
2:15:16 PM
MS. HESS answered that DNR worked with AML to develop language
that was satisfactory regarding construction standards and
maintenance. She said DNR has two letters from AML in support
of Version G, Section 2, and what it does for DNR in terms of
having to construct roads for subdivisions. Regarding DEED's
ability to sell its own land, she stated that DEED would seek
the input of stakeholders and other agencies before going out to
the public, and then it would follow a public process. She
related that DEED is supportive of keeping the provision in the
bill that would allow DEED the flexibility to sell land that is
no longer necessary for the agency's purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asserted that local governments supporting
consistent construction and maintenance standards is different
from supporting a land disposal process within a specific
department. He offered his understanding that Ms. Hess was
speaking to the maintenance standards of access roads, not
whether DOT&PF can directly dispose of property.
MR. HESS agreed she was speaking to the construction standards
rather than DOT&PF being able to dispose of land by itself as
the state agency. She explained that DOT&PF already has that
ability for its roads under Title 19, but the agency's public
facilities are under Title 35 and this provision in Version G
makes it all consistent for DOT&PF to dispose of land that is no
longer necessary for road purposes as well as to dispose of land
that is no longer needed for public facilities.
2:17:56 PM
HEATHER O'CLARAY, Statewide Right-of-Way Chief, Division of
Statewide Design and Engineering Services, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), confirmed DOT&PF
does have independent authority to dispose of land. She further
confirmed that DOT&PF's rules are different for properties that
are considered public works or facilities that were acquired
under AS 35, which this bill addresses, then they are for AS 19,
which this bill does not address, or AS 02 Aviation, which this
bill also does not address. She added that because of the way
AS 35 is currently written, DOT&PF does not have regulations to
do disposal under AS 35.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that, given this clarification, he
has less concern about this provision in Version G. He withdrew
Amendment 2.
2:19:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to adopt Amendment 3 to Version G of
HB 120, labeled 32-GH1634\G.7, Bullard, 5/8/22, which read:
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "relating to the leasing and sale of state
land;"
Page 7, line 20, through page 11, line 14:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:19:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained Amendment 3 would remove the
entirety of Section 13, a provision which she believes sidesteps
nearly a half century of planning processes that have been in
law. She said Section 13 would allow de facto noncompetitive
sole source leasing on sales of state land without having to
comply with state area land management plans for processes,
which are painstakingly public, exhaustive, and a mainstay of
why Alaskans believe the state's land management is adequate.
Section 13, she added, would open the strong potential for
sweetheart deals. While the department has no intent to do
that, she continued, intent does not carry forward on that level
once someone has nominated a piece of land which he or she found
attractive for a business that may have previously been excluded
because of an extensive public process of a land management area
plan. She said deleting Section 13 relieves many of her
concerns with the bill and ensures that state land disposals go
through and comply with the area land management process, a
completely public process from start to finish so there is no
opportunity for a sweetheart deal and manipulation of what has
been a sound practice in Alaska.
MS. HESS responded that individuals could nominate land for
either lease or sale, but if it is not properly classified for
disposal, DNR would still have to go through that public process
and reclassify it so that it would be available for either lease
or sale. The bill as currently written, she said, also allows
the commissioner to consider those nominations but maybe not
take them up. So, she continued, DNR feels there is a public
process as it would consider the area plans and the planning
process, and it would go through that same public process if it
needs to be classified so that it would be available for
disposal.
2:23:00 PM
MS. HESS, responding further to Representative Hannan, stated
that in application, she is an attorney.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that Ms. Hess used the terms "can
consider" and "could." Previous explanations she has received
from the department, she related, were that the commissioner is
to "consider" the land management plan, but it is not restricted
to that, so the commissioner "could" decide to take an action
that is in direct conflict with an area land management plan
because the commissioner is to [consideration is not a mandate].
She expressed her concern that while this administration does
not have the intent to do that, a situation would be set up
where the mandate for an area land management plan becomes
subjective language of "may." She asked whether she is correct
that this would therefore mean a public process prescribed in
law would now say that the department and its commissioner could
decide to do something different, and the law would allow it.
MS. HESS answered that that is not the way the department
interprets this provision of Section 13. She said the
commissioner can consider a nomination to lease or sell the
land; the commissioner doesn't have to consider that, but if the
commissioner chooses to consider that nomination then it would
have to go through the area plan process for amending an area
plan if it's proper depending on weighing a bunch of factors.
That would go through a public process of classifying or
changing the classification if it's appropriate; there may be
times when it is not appropriate to change a classification,
such as for a highly mineralized area. So, Ms. Hess continued,
a nomination is what the commissioner "can consider." If the
commissioner chooses to consider that nomination for either a
lease or sale, she said, then the area plan is going to come
into play because it must be properly classified to move forward
with that lease or sale, and that would be a full public process
by DNR that takes in public comment.
2:26:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS agreed with Representative Hannan's
assessment that the department "could" ignore these plans. He
put forth the Hatcher Pass Land Use Plan as an example of a plan
that had years of public input from multiple user groups, and he
expressed his concern that under Section 13 a key piece of land
could be liquidated because this section would allow the
department to ignore all that public input. He maintained that
Section 13 would enable liquidation, for example, of a public
access that would be contrary to the public interest, which
troubles him. He said Section 13 is inconsistent with maximum
benefit from development of a resource.
2:28:25 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested a refresher on the mechanics of the
bill as it relates to sole sourcing versus competitively bid
lands put up for sale. He offered his understanding that when a
piece of land is appealed to be sold, the department is going to
consider the best return for the state. He inquired about what
triggers the determination that it is an outright sale versus a
competitively bid process.
MS. HESS replied that currently leases under 10 years do not
have to be competitive, but leases longer than 10 years must be
a competitive process. She said the area plan must properly
classify the land to be available for either lease or disposal.
She stated that DNR considers its area plans all the time and
there are many reasons why area plans are amended or changed for
a specific purpose. But, she continued, it would still follow
the public processes for changing that classification of an area
plan for a specific purpose for a specific need such as lease or
sale if it is not currently classified like that.
2:30:09 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK posed a scenario in which a sale has occurred
where an organized city or borough controls the permitting
process locally, and he offered his understanding that it would
still have to meet that bar. He related that during his time
serving on the North Slope Borough, the borough exercised Title
19 powers that everything is a conservation district, and anyone
interested in commercial aspects must come before the assembly
through a long and critical process to change the land use plan
for that area from a conservation district to a multi-use,
recreational, or industrial district. He surmised that this
bill would not undermine any municipal authorities or powers
that a potential private landowner would have to go through.
MS. HESS confirmed that that is correct. She said that once
land is sold from state ownership to private hands, if the now
private property is in a municipality or borough with zoning and
powers, the private landowner will have to follow that
municipality's rules and regulations regarding classification
needs for permitting for that borough or municipality.
2:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked how someone with a cabin on leased
state lands could buy that land.
MS. HESS answered that currently a person can nominate land to
be sold because the department has that ability under current
state statutes. She said the owner of a cabin on a state lease
could come to the department and nominate it for a sale, and the
area plan is going to have to allow for that to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM related that this question was brought up
to him by cabin owners who want to buy the land. He said the
cabin owners are paying property taxes on land they don't own,
and they want to know how to buy that property and whether it is
DNR that they would approach.
MS. HESS responded that the cabin owners are probably paying
taxes to the local municipality on the improvements that they
own because the lease/permit holder doesn't own the underlying
land. If the cabin owners want to buy the underlying land, and
assuming it is not in a legislatively designated area, she
continued, they could nominate it and ask the department to sell
it to them. Like what is in Section 13, she added, anybody can
ask the state to sell a piece of land and then the department
evaluates and goes through that public process as to whether it
is appropriate to sell the underlying land. Responding further,
she confirmed the prospective purchaser would come to DNR.
CHAIR PATKOTAK thanked Ms. Hess for underlining Section 13
leases and sales of land on commercial developments.
2:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, regarding Section 13, recalled that Ms.
Hess had earlier assured her that if a parcel was nominated for
commercial development, DNR couldn't just redo the process if
the area management plan didn't allow it. Representative Hannan
maintained, however, that Section 13 does allow the commissioner
to classify or reclassify the land and that that process of
classification is substantially less than what it takes to redo
a management plan to say that the parcel could be sold for
commercial development. She asked whether Ms. Hess knows what
the differences are between reclassifying something within the
management plan and redoing the management plan.
MS. HESS answered that AS 38.05.300 and AS 38.04.065 lay out the
processes for classifying land or reclassifying land, and either
way it must go through the public process. She said all the
factors that current state statutes require must be weighed in
terms of balancing those needs and determining whether it can be
properly classified to be sold out of state ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said the description given to her is that
that reclassification public process is substantially less than
what a management plan process is. Although Ms. Hess is saying
that there is still a public process, Representative Hannan said
she presumes that the notification is not very extensive and can
be done in one meeting, one hearing. She asked how similar this
proposed process is to the extensive and exhaustive area
management plan process that involves all entities.
MS. HESS confirmed that DNR's area plans take considerable time
to develop from start to finish and include public input,
meetings, and talking with local landowners and stakeholders.
She said the same thing also happens with DNR's reclassification
process. She said DNR looks for public input and weighs a bunch
of factors that are required under state statutes. She stated
that it might be a discrete portion of the area plan that DNR is
looking to change but it doesn't de minimize the public process
that DNR must follow and the input that DNR receives before
determining if it's appropriate to reclassify those lands.
2:38:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed his concern about notice to
adjacent landowners in [Section 13]. He posited that a
significant piece of public property with public access and huge
public benefits that has been through a 10-year management plan
process could be disposed of through, say, a mailing to three
people, an online public notice during hunting season when no
one is paying attention, and notice in a local newspaper that
few people read, and therefore no one might notice. He stated
that important public lands need to go through a rigorous public
process. However, Section 13 is designed to dispose as quickly
as possible with minimal public input, and this public notice
issue gets at the problem with Section 13, he argued.
2:39:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY called the question.
2:40:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS opined that ensuring there is good and
proactive public notice is the right direction for making
certain that all the affected property owners and users know
what is happening in an area. He said he will be supporting
Amendment 3 to ensure Alaskans are not left out of the process.
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected to Amendment 3. He stated that
the auction process isn't good for someone obtaining a loan.
2:41:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Schrage, Hannan,
Hopkins, and Fields voted in favor of Amendment 3 to Version G
of HB 120. Representatives Gillam, Rauscher, Cronk, McKay, and
Patkotak voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed to be
adopted by a vote of 4-5.
[HB 120 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 177 Presentation CVEA 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SJR 23 Image of Family With Mountain 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Image of Mountain Aerial 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Image of Mountain From Deck 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Image of Mountain Location 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Cappelletti 03.16.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Judy Brady 03.14.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Kim Griffith 03.12.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Debardelaben 03.17.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Ralph Samuels 03.16.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Sponsor Statement 3.18.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support DeBardelaben 3.18.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SB 177 Sectional Analysis 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Explanation of Changes Version B 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.2 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.3 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Testimony Packet Three 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Hannan G.7 5.9.22.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |