Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/21/2000 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 7
An Act relating to the University of Alaska and
university land, and authorizing the University of
Alaska to select additional state land.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, 1-
LS0072\W.1, Luckhaupt, 3/21/00. [Copy on File].
Representative J. Davies OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT,
distributed language that would help clarify the amendment.
[Copy on File]. He noted that there had been a question
regarding when the land could be selected and explained it
could be chosen if it was not being used. The additional
language speaks to the role of the municipality. Co-Chair
Therriault clarified that the University and the
municipality would be on the same "footing".
Representative J. Davies questioned the clause in the
addendum that "the University may not select the land".
WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, STATEWIDE PROGRAMS, UNIVERSITY
OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS, recommended that a comma replace the
semicolon.
Representative J. Davies WITHDREW his OBJECTION to the
amendment. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1
was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault WITHDREW Amendment #2, 1-LS0072\W.2,
Luckhaupt, 3/21/00. [Copy on File].
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #3, 1-
LS0072\W.3, Luckhaupt, 3/21/00. [Copy on File]. There
being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted.
Representative J. Davies stated that Amendment #2 would
"fix" the logic of Subsection M. He suggested that the
language in that section does not make sense without the
amendment.
Co-Chair Therriault requested Ms. Redman to explain that
language. Ms. Redman replied that the language that exists
in the draft bill W.2, all conveyances of land come to the
University with the existing easement rights-of-way. Ms.
Redman noted that the University is interested in receiving
reasonable protection.
Vice Chair Bunde speculated that if the amendment were
offered, it would put pressure on the Commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources to speed up easements on the
right-of-ways.
Representative J. Davies requested to modify Amendment #2 by
placing it in the positive. On Line 3, delete "may not
conveying" and insert "when conveying"; Line 4, delete
"reserves" and insert "shall reserve".
JIM POUND, STAFF, SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, noted that language
would work well.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt the amended
Amendment #2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt an amendment on Page
12, Line 19, deleting "may" and inserting "shall". Co-Chair
Therriault OBJECTED.
Representative J. Davies explained that the change would
illustrate the concept of the University "demonstration
forest". He thought that using "may" would leave a
possibility that nothing would happen. If "shall" is used,
it is guaranteed that there will be action.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if Representative J. Davies believed
that the demonstration forest would make money for the
University. Representative J. Davies stated it would. Ms.
Redman argued that she did not know. She believed that the
primary purpose of a demonstration forest would not be to
maximize income but to act as laboratory for forestry
practices.
Co-Chair Mulder understood that the purpose of the bill was
to attempt to make the University "whole" from possible
income generated. He voiced concern that it could become a
"money looser" rather than a "money maker". Representative
J. Davies argued that there has been resistance to
developing the forestlands. He commented that Alaska has
not moved into the modern age of how to manage forests. He
stressed the language change would allow more economic
development.
Vice Chair Bunde complained that "shall" would make for
micro-management. Co-Chair Therriault agreed. Inclusion of
"shall" indicates that the Legislature would like to see
something happen on the land but are not mandating it.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that there are many
"shalls" included in the same section of the bill. He asked
if there would be an opportunity for grants if the
University had established the demonstration project.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Moses, Phillips, J. Davies
OPPOSED: Austerman, Bunde, G. Davis, Foster, Mulder,
Therriault
Representative Moses was not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-6).
Ms. Redman noted that the University's fiscal note should be
in sink with Department of Natural Resources. The
University would be spending all non-general funds.
CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, interjected that
the Department of Natural Resources will provide a revised
fiscal note indicating interagency receipts.
Representative J. Davies asked the assumption in making the
additional increment of $600 thousand dollars. Ms. Carroll
replied that on bigger sections of land, the cost is less to
survey. She emphasized that the Department will only be paid
for the work that they do.
Representative J. Davies inquired if the legislation was
approved, could an RPL be developed if there was a need.
Co-Chair Therriault agreed, noting that it is important that
the Legislature take a "guess" as to what it is going to be.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the legislation were to come
into law, how quickly would the University be incurring some
of these costs. Ms. Redman responded that the University
would be able to be back the first year with some small
sections of lands. There has been discussion with some
municipalities of undertaking some shared development. She
anticipated needing the full ten years for the amount of
land.
Co-Chair Therriault recommended that the amount should be
estimated. He questioned if there needed to be a change to
the note. Ms. Redman did not anticipate that, however asked
to check with the University's financial division.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned why the dollar amount did not
match with the Department. Ms. Carroll noted that the note
from the Department should reflect the "House Resources
Committee" version of the bill. Ms. Redman added that the
corrected fiscal notes would be available tomorrow.
Ms. Redman commented that there was nothing in the bill that
would require them to give money to the Department of Fish
and Game. Ms. Redman stated that the Commissioner of
Department of Natural Resources in collaboration with the
Commissioner of Department of Fish and Game would make that
determination.
Ms. Carroll asked for clarification whether it was
anticipated that Department of Natural Resources would be
collecting for the Department of Fish and Game.
DICK MYLIUS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), RESOURCE
ASSESSEMENT DEVELOPMENT SECTION of LAND, MINE AND WATER,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOUCRS, stated that the Department's
fiscal note did not include Department of Fish and Game
costs. That Department would be reviewing selections from
a wildlife point of view, which was not factored into the
costs for the Department of Natural Resources.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the fiscal notes would be
adjusted so that the dollar amount was in sink.
Representative Austerman asked to change the Department of
Fish and Game fiscal note to reflect interagency receipt
money coming from the University. Ms. Redman stated that
the University would not be purchasing services from
Department of Fish and Game. Representative Austerman asked
if the Department of Fish and Game fiscal note was
erroneous. Co-Chair Therriault stated that the Department
of Fish and Game would be offering an opinion with
dispositions of State lands. Ms. Carroll believed that
Department of Fish and Game's note was written in reference
to Page 6, Lines 22-25. She believed that it would create a
lot of work.
Representative Phillips suggested that the fiscal note be
changed to interagency receipts to Department of Natural
Resources rather than to the University.
Representative Austerman stated that he did not want to see
more work for the Department without funding. Somewhere
along the way, the Department will need to be paid. Ms.
Redman supported the idea presented by Representative
Phillips. She noted that she did not anticipate the
Department of Fish and Game being impacted, however, the
University would compensate that Department for the seal of
approval on the lands. She recommended that be incorporated
through interagency receipts. Ms. Redman noted that the
Department of Natural Resources fiscal note would be handled
separately.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to report HCS CS SB 7 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the attached fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CS SB 7 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with new fiscal notes by the
Department of Fish and Game, the University of Alaska and
Department of Natural Resources.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|