Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/19/1997 01:35 PM Senate CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 98 CONVEY LAND TO MUNICIPALITIES/BOROUGHS
CHAIRMAN MACKIE called the Senate Community & Regional Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. He noted the presence of
Senators Hoffman, Phillips, Wilken and Mackie. He then brought SB
98 before the committee as the first order of business.
ANNETTE KREITZER , staff to Senator Loren Leman, who is the prime
sponsor of SB 98, said the legislation was introduced at the
request of the Municipality of Anchorage.
SB 98 would allow the director of the Division of Lands to convey
isolated tracts of lands within boundaries of a borough to the
municipality. The director is given direction in the bill to give
special consideration to a conveyance of a tract that is contiguous
or in proximity to other municipal land. Ms. Kreitzer explained
the purpose of the that is to simplify some of these land
management problems that the Municipality of Anchorage has had;
however, in doing so, and to meet the criteria of best interest of
the state, this conveyance would have to: (1) consolidate land
ownership patterns; (2) result in more cost-effective and efficient
land management; and (3) achieve the land use planning objectives
of the state and the municipality in which the tract is located.
Ms. Kreitzer further explained that these tracts of land, if they
are conveyed under this subsection, would not be considered in
fulfilling the general grant land entitlement of a borough or a
unified municipality under Title 29.
Number 065
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if this legislation would apply strictly to
Anchorage, and MS. KREITZER responded that the way the bill is
written now it is for unified municipalities.
Number 090
GARY GUSTAFSON , Director of the Heritage Land Bank for the
Municipality of Anchorage, stated SB 98 will help solve a problem
of what to do with isolated tracts of state land. These are state
parcels that are left over following years of municipal selection,
conveyance, and other land transfers. These isolated tracts are
often adjacent to, or, in many cases, entirely surrounded by
municipal lands and may therefore be managed more efficiently and
cost-effectively by the local government.
Mr. Gustafson said the legislation also avoids the major pitfalls
that have too often affected other land transfer bills because: (1)
it is short and simple; (2) there is no amendment to the existing
statutory land entitlement of boroughs and municipalities; (3) it
applies only to vacant, unappropriated and unreserved state lands;
and (4) it does not require the state to convey, instead it merely
allows the municipalities to make application for land and allows
DNR to transfer it.
Mr. Gustafson said the bill does not provide a definition of
"isolated tract" and that's because an isolated tract could be a
fraction of an acre in an urban setting, or it could be several
hundred acres in a rural area. The overriding consideration is
that the proposed conveyance be cost-effective and efficient so
that local government has access to utilized lands that perhaps the
state of Alaska would not be prepared or find cost-effective to
manage.
Mr. Gustafson pointed out that the bill would not apply until a
borough or municipality has already reached or is about to reach
their statutory entitlement under AS 29.65. The bill then could be
used for jurisdictions that are close to receiving their
entitlement. That would include Anchorage, the Fairbanks North
Star Borough, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Kenai Borough, and
as time goes on, all unified municipalities and boroughs would be
eligible.
Mr. Gustafson voiced the municipality's strong support for SB 98,
and he encouraged its favorable consideration.
Number 142
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked what was motivating the need for this
legislation. MR. GUSTAFSON responded that there are still have a
few isolated tracts of state land in the Anchorage Bowl, but
Girdwood is probably the area where this would most directly apply.
The municipality owns most of the bottom of the Girdwood Valley,
the Forest Service owns the mountain tops, and in between is a
layer of state land. The municipality has plans to develop ski
resort expansion for Alyeska in this area and they will be doing
the majority of that development on municipal land. He said it
only makes sense to obtain the state land in between their land and
the Forest Service land so that they don't have to have three
layers of jurisdictions and authorities to get authorizations to
develop the land.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE commented that the legislation refers to the
director, and in statute "director" means the director of lands in
DNR. He said he was a little uneasy about giving a division
director the ability to convey land to municipalities. He
questioned why the sponsor didn't introduce a bill that just limits
it to those tracts the Municipality of Anchorage is interested in.
MS. KREITZER responded that Senator Leman agreed to introduce this
bill on behalf of the Municipality of Anchorage, as it is written,
with the understanding that these questions would come up. He
believes that through the committee process, if a bill that's going
to move forward and move out of this committee is going to happen,
then those questions are going to have to be dealt with in this
committee. She said Senator Leman has the same concerns, and he is
prepared to deal with those questions.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said he wouldn't have a problem with a situation
like the Alyeska Ski Resort expansion or another municipality that
was in a similar type of situation, but he is concerned with
conveying broad authority like SB 98 provides. MR. GUSTAFSON
related that the provision giving the director the authority to
make the decision was included in the legislation because AS 29.65
already provides the director with the authority to make decisions
on municipal selections. CHAIRMAN MACKIE said that was a different
story than conveying actual parcels of land out of municipalities.
Number 225
KEVIN RITCHIE , Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
directed attention to a letter of support and a resolution that was
passed by the Alaska Municipal League in November in support of SB
98. He expressed the Municipal League's willingness to work with
the committee on the bill.
Mr. Ritchie said a number of municipalities are members of the
Municipal League's lands committee. That committee met recently
and they all thought that SB 98 would be a very reasonable tool to
provide some additional ability for the state to convey land that
was meaningful to municipalities.
Number 250
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked which unified municipalities in the state
would gain from this legislation. MR. RITCHIE replied that the
Municipal League's lands committee has never discussed the language
"boroughs and unified municipalities," but he didn't think there
would be an objection to simply delete "boroughs and unified" which
would then cover all municipalities in the state.
Number 265
SENATOR WILKEN said there is no consideration of the value of the
land that's being transferred from one entity to another, and he
questioned if that is something that should be considered.
DICK MYLIUS , Chief of the Resource Assessment & Development
Section, Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources,
testifying from Anchorage, said the current municipal entitlement
program was set up in 1978. The total amount of land the state has
given municipalities is about 1.3 million acres, and of that, about
600,000 acres have not yet been transferred. He explained that is
partly because some of the large land grants to boroughs came on
line a few years ago with the formation of boroughs like the
Northwest Arctic Borough and such, but the department is in the
process of conveying those lands. There are a few municipalities
that have received all of their land, and, in the case of
Anchorage, there was actually an out-of-court settlement that
resolved their entitlement by giving them a combination of land and
cash because there was not enough land to meet their entitlement.
Anchorage is one of only four municipalities that fall under this
Act which have full entitlement or close to their full entitlement.
The other 12 municipalities that qualify under this Act either as
boroughs or home rule municipalities still are owed land under the
existing program. However, most of the cities, with the exception
of one or two, are only owed, at the most, a few hundred acres.
There are about five boroughs that have large outstanding debts and
then small amounts to a whole lot of municipalities.
Mr. Mylius related that one of DNR's concerns about this bill is
that most municipalities can hardly get isolated tracts of state
land through their existing entitlement. There is also concern
that with the way the language is written, any borough or
municipality that's still owed land under AS 29.65 could also come
in and file for selections, and it is kind of like writing a blank
check in terms of how much land they might end up with. In the
case of Anchorage, there are very few tracts that they can get
because there isn't a whole lot of state land available in that
area.
Number 400
SENATOR WILKEN asked if when Anchorage got their entitlement, as
well as a cash settlement because there was inadequate land
available, did that complete the commitment from the state. MR.
MYLIUS answered that there is a 1986 agreement with Anchorage which
basically outlines what needs to be done to complete the
commitment. There are some parcels of land that still have not
been conveyed to the municipality, some of which they only get if
the state doesn't need them. So it is still kind of an ongoing
commitment to the municipality to convey them certain specific
tracts of lands, but to the large part, their commitments to
Anchorage have been met.
SENATOR WILKEN said his concern is that the land belonging to the
state belongs to all the people of the state, and if it does have
value to the people of the state, that is not recognized in this
bill. MR. GUSTAFSON said Senator Wilken raises an excellent issue
that the state always has to weigh when it conveys property. He
said the bill does not require the state to convey anything, but in
many cases, there will be isolated tracts of state land that are
remote, difficult to manage, and not very cost effective for the
state to manage, and in those cases, it might be better to transfer
them to the municipality so that they can be used and perhaps go
into a local tax base.
Number 415
JANE ANGVIK , Director, Division of Land, Department of Natural
Resources, testifying from Anchorage, stated the department is
concerned about how this legislation will affect the amount of work
that is already being done with municipal entitlements within the
Department of Natural Resources, as well as efforts on the part of
the Legislature to try to encourage the disposal of lands that
belong to the state. She pointed out that the House Finance
Committee has slated the division for a $218,000 reduction in their
operating budget which will affect their capacity to fulfill their
existing requirements under the municipal entitlement program, so
there is some concern about taking on additional responsibilities
and responding to municipalities who are requesting them to make a
best interest finding with respect to allocations of land.
Ms. Angvik said the division is interested in working with the
Legislature on trying to find ways to make lands available to
Alaskans. There has been discussion on whether or not there should
be some triggering mechanism for municipalities to be required to
dispose of some of the lands that they have received from the state
to make them available to the public. So as a policy question,
they are interested in exploring the possibility of encouraging
additional disposal of lands by municipal governments.
Ms. Angvik pointed out that the legislation does not contain a
definition of "isolated tract," and since it is not defined, it is
not clear if there is any size consideration in the proposal to
dispose of a piece of land.
In conclusion, Ms. Angvik said the department looks forward to
working with the committee on ways to improve the bill.
Number 492
SENATOR WILKEN directed attention to page 1, line 7, and suggested
deleting the words "may not be" and replacing with the words "shall
be" so that if the land being selected is not going to be counted
as part of a municipality's entitlement, then he would expect that
they would pay the people of the state for the value of that land.
When a municipal entitlement has been fulfilled, then it would
strictly be a fair market value as all other programs in the state.
Number 510
SAM KITO , Special Assistant to Commissioner Perkins, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities, said the department owns tracts
of lands, specifically around airports, and it can specifically be
located within a municipality or borough. DOT's concern is that
in a borough or municipality with a finite land base that these
isolated state tracts will increase in value over time and could
potentially prove valuable for land exchanges and transportation
improvements as well. The department believes these tracts have
value and should not be given away to a municipality. If the state
determines that there is no long term need for a piece of property,
then that property can be purchased at fair market value from the
state, or considered as part of a municipal entitlement.
There being no further testimony, CHAIRMAN MACKIE stated SB 98
would be held, and he invited all the interested parties to work
with his staff and the sponsor's staff to address the concerns that
had been raised during the meeting.
Number 565
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|