Legislature(2005 - 2006)
04/04/2005 02:55 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB229 | |
| HB132 | |
| HB41 | |
| HB16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 229
An Act relating to the reinstatement of Native
corporations; and providing for an effective date.
PAUL LA BOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER,
explained that the legislation had been introduced at the
request of regional Native corporations in their district.
Corporations have been involuntarily dissolved by the
commissioner under AS 10.06.633 and failed to apply for
reinstatement during the grace period established in
statute. The legislation provides a one-time window during
which the Native village corporations, who have been
dissolved, can apply for reinstatement.
Mr. La Bolle continued, the legislation is needed because
the corporations were established under the Alaska Native
Land Claims Settlement and legally own village corporation
assets. A new corporation could be created but it would not
have the same legal standing as the original corporations
nor could they legally own the assets. The bill would allow
the corporation's board of directors to legally change the
corporation's name if another corporation had taken the
previous name.
Mr. La Bolle pointed out that the proposed legislation
applies to Caswell Native Association, Savoonga Native
Corporation, Arviq Incorporated and Oscarville Native
Corporation.
Representative Kelly asked what would the consequences be if
the legislation did not pass. Mr. La Bolle explained that
the corporation would be dissolved, the assets would go to
paying off debt and any remaining assets would be split
between the shareholders.
Representative Kelly asked if they would be forced to
reapply. Mr. La Bolle explained that it would not be the
same corporation. They could have the same name but would
not hold the lands or any other assets granted under the
Native Lands Settlement Act. The lands would be divided
between shareholders when the corporation was dissolved.
Representative Kelly asked why they would make a choice to
not reapply. Mr. La Bolle replied that the choice was not
made but had been overlooked.
Representative Kelly asked the number of corporations the
legislation would apply to. Mr. La Bolle replied that it
would relate to all Native village corporations,
specifically the four previously mentioned.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired how many times the bill had been
heard. Representative Foster explained that this was about
the fifth time it had been introduced for various
corporations over the years. The corporations forget to
file their returns.
3:00:46 PM
Representative Kelly inquired if there was opposition to the
legislation. Mr. La Bolle replied that all the corporations
support it.
3:01:34 PM
Representative Weyhrauch asked to make a conceptual
amendment. Co-Chair Meyer requested that he "hold" that
idea until public testimony had been taken.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired if the requests had been made
from large landholders.
ALYCE HOUSTON, CORPORATIONAL SUPERVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, said she did not
know the size of the land holdings as that information is
not reported to her section. Co-Chair Chenault commented
that information must be available.
Representative Holm questioned if there was a penalty for
not filing in a timely manner. Ms. Houston said there was.
The corporations have been involuntarily dissolved for not
filing the reports and paying their fees. Often times,
because of the biannual pay period, the address that was
provided do not always get to the ones that need to file the
reports. She noted that they are allowed to reinstate
within a two-year period and the two-year period that has
passed.
Mr. La Bolle pointed out that there is a $37.50 dollar fee
for each year that the corporation has not filed. With the
proposed extension, it would be a $70 dollar late fee
penalty. Ms. Houston corrected that the fees had been
doubled and that the corporation would be paying $275
dollars to reinstate.
3:04:48 PM
Representative Holm was troubled by the notion that there
are requirements for other corporations in the State. He
questioned if the legislation would be good policy. Mr. La
Bolle replied that it is good policy because the results of
not passing the legislation would be worse.
Representative Holm inquired why there are different
policies for different corporate laws. Ms. Houston replied
that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) had contacted her
and there seems to be serious implications if they do not
keep their original lands from the Alaska Native Lands
Settlement Act. Those corporations need to keep their
original date of incorporation or there are serious
complications; whereas, any other entity could reincorporate
and have a new beginning date. There is a different
implication for those land holdings.
3:06:46 PM
Representative Holm understood the severity of the
situation, however, he thought there should be a policy that
the corporations fulfill their legal obligations.
Co-Chair Chenault mentioned the lands issue and was curious
if the corporations would loose their lands & assets. He
asked where the lands would go. Ms. Huston did not know if
that had ever happened.
3:08:26 PM
Representative Joule responded that there are two levels
being discussed. The village corporations have surface
ownership and the regional corporations that encompass the
village have sub-surface rights. He admitted the issue was
complicated.
Vice-Chair Stoltze agreed that the legislation needs to
pass. He noted that he did not want to find out what the
consequences would be if it did not pass.
Representative Weyhrauch recommended that the corporations
be warned and then fined.
3:10:34 PM
Representative Foster responded that there are at least 230
villages throughout Alaska and that some are basically
uninhabited. He understood how mail delivery could be
"balled up". He stressed that these are not professional
office people. Representative Foster did not know the
easiest way to address the concern.
Representative Hawker interjected that he was a co-sponsor
of the bill. He pointed out that by the time the last bill
got to the floor a couple years ago, it passed unanimously.
He surmised that passage of the legislation is "just the
right thing to do".
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 229 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 229 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|