Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/27/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB67 | |
| HB13 | |
| HB257 | |
| HB53 | |
| HB218 | |
| HB279 | |
| HB243 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 279
"An Act relating to encroachments in the right-of-way
of a highway."
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, SPONSOR, spoke in support of the
legislation, which was introduced by the House
Transportation Committee, on behalf of Representative Hawker
and Representative Stoltze. He maintained that the
legislation would clear an inconsistency in the current law
regarding the use of highway right-of-ways. Federal law
requires all that encroachments from project construction be
removed from the right-of-way. He gave examples of how
current law has inconvenienced businesses in his district.
House Bill 279 inserts an exception into statute that will
grandfather current encroachments in the right-of-way. They
may remain until such time as [the state of Alaska] needs to
have the encroachments removed. He mentioned Amendment #1,
which would further clarify the rights of the state. (see
below). The bill does not address billboards or other signs.
4:27:50 PM
Representative Holm mentioned the fiscal note, which
contains no increment.
4:28:24 PM
JOHN MACKINNON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, stated that the
Department has not refined the fiscal note. There is an
annual economic rent. An application fee would be set
through regulation for encroachment based on appraisal or
$100 dollars per year, which ever is greater. He
acknowledged that there would be an incremental cost in
handling permits.
4:30:05 PM
Representative Holm expressed concern with the legislation.
He observed that the landowner owns the property, yet the
state has the right to charge them for an easement. Mr.
MacKinnon clarified that the process is in current
regulation.
Representative Hawker commented that property is acquired
subject to the easement. The landowner is entitled to fee
simple and subject to the easement rights.
Mr. MacKinnon noted that there are two classes of right or
ways: where the state has an easement and where the state
owns the property. It is difficult to collect payments when
the state only has an easement.
4:32:11 PM
Representative Kelly asked if the legislation would resolve
any federal requirements: maintenance concerns & standards.
He commented on Amendment #1 and questioned if it would
cover maintenance needs. Mr. MacKinnon responded that
encroachments were not close enough to the road to cause
trouble. There is no problem with mailboxes.
4:33:31 PM
Representative Hawker noted that the legislation only
addresses existing encroachments and does not allow any new
ones. The amendment specifically addresses qualifications.
4:34:37 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1 as amended
(see applicant below):
Page 1, line 12, following "remain"
Insert ", subject only to removals required by federal
highway funding requirements imposed on the state by
federal law,"
Page 1, line 15 through page 2, line 13
Delete all material
Insert
"(c) Upon receipt of an application, the department
shall issue an encroachment permit to a private person,
a government agency acting in a business capacity, or
an owner or lessee of land contiguous to the right-of-
way for an encroachment that on the effective date of
this Act is present within the right-of-way of an
interstate, primary, or secondary highway and is not
authorized by a written encroachment permit if the
department finds that:
(1) the encroachment does not pose a risk to the
traveling public and the integrity and safety of the
highway is not compromised;
(2) the applicant [application] has demonstrated the
encroachment was erected in good faith;
3) the denial of the encroachment permit would pose a
hardship on the person, agency, owner, or lessee who
applies for the permit;
(4) the issuance of an encroachment permit will not
cause a break in access control for the highway;
(5) the land will not be necessary for a highway
construction project during the initial term of the
permit; and
(6) issuance of a permit is consistent with federal
requirements regarding encroachments on federal aid
highways.
(d) The department may not remove an encroachment
present within the right-of-way of an interstate,
primary, or secondary highway that is not authorized by
a written encroachment permit on the effective date of
this Act until the department determines that the
encroachment does not qualify for an encroachment
permit issued under this section. The department may
charge an application fee, not to exceed $100, for a
permit issued under this section. An encroachment
permit issued under this section may contain reasonable
conditions to protect the traveling public, the safety
and integrity of a highway's design and the public
interest.
(e) The land area described in an encroachment permit
may not be used to meet minimum requirements for a
contiguous land use under applicable municipal land use
standards or under applicable regulations adopted by
the Department of Environmental Conservation. The use
of land contiguous to the land area described in the
permit must satisfy the applicable municipal land use
standards and applicable regulations adopted by the
Department of Environmental Conservation without regard
to the land area described in the permit.
(f) The issuance of an encroachment permit under AS
19.25.200 - 19.25.250 does not entitle the owner,
occupant, or person in possession of the encroachment,
or any other person to a payment of compensation or of
relocation benefits under AS 34.60, if the encroachment
permit is revoked or not renewed or if the encroachment
must be changed, relocated, or removed under AS
19.25.200 - 19.25.250.
Representative Holm referred to provisions for the
Department of Environmental Conservation to create
applicable regulations for the use of contiguous lands. He
questioned if contiguous lands would be kept under the same
umbrella of use.
4:37:10 PM
Representative Hawker clarified that the intent is that the
issuance of a permit not create, for any land owner, a thing
of value that they do not already exist a thing of value
that they already possess. There is no intention to devalue
any right that the landowner possesses. The contiguous land
concept addresses these concerns.
4:39:17 PM
Representative Holm expressed concern with Section E and
questioned what type of restraints would be put on the
property.
4:40:07 PM
In response to Representative Holm's concerns,
Representative Hawker stated that he would entertain a
separate amendment to remove "applicable regulations adopted
by the Department of Environmental Conservation".
Representative Holm WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment #1.
Representative Kelly referred to liability. Mr. MacKinnon
noted that liability is covered as part of the permit
holder's homeowners' insurance. He stated that he was more
concern with the public coming through and getting injured.
4:41:24 PM
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
4:41:41 PM
Representative Holm asked for more information on Section E.
Mr. MacKinnon replied that the intent was not to run a foul
of on site wastewater requirements.
Representative Hawker stressed that they are attempting to
walk among existing rights, standards and regulations, while
addressing individual problems.
4:44:19 PM
Mr. MacKinnon spoke in support of the legislation.
4:45:00 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CS HB 279 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 279 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with zero fiscal note #1
by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
4:46:13 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|