Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/27/1995 01:30 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 27, 1995
1:50 P.M.
TAPE HFC 95 - 103, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 95 - 103, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 95 - 104, Side 1, #000 - #525.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:50 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kohring
Co-Chair Foster Representative Martin
Representative Mulder Representative Navarre
Representative Brown Representative Parnell
Representative Grussendorf Representative Therriault
Representative Kelly
ALSO PRESENT
Deborah Behr, Regulations Attorney, Department of Law; Reed
Stoops, AJ Associates, Juneau; Ron Swanson, Director,
Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources; Jeff
Logan, Staff to Representative Joe Green; Bob Evans,
Representative for the Anchorage School District, Anchorage;
Juanita Hensley, Chief, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Public Safety; Duane Guiley, Director, School
Finance, Department of Education.
SUMMARY
HB 57 An Act relating to driver's licensing; and
providing for an effective date.
HB 57 was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Public Safety dated 3/10/95.
HB 130 An Act relating to agency review of public comment
on the adoption, amendment, and repeal of
regulations; relating to the examination of
proposed regulations, amendments of regulations,
and orders repealing regulations by the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee and the
Department of Law; relating to the submission to,
and acceptance by, the lieutenant governor of
1
proposed regulations, amendments of regulations,
and orders repealing regulations; and requiring
agencies to make certain determinations before
adopting regulations, amendments of regulations,
or orders repealing regulations.
CS HB 130 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes:
(5) by the Office of the Governor; (1) by the
Department of Administration; (1) by the
Department of Law; (1) by the Department of
Education; (2) by the Department of Health and
Social Services; (4) by the Department of Commerce
and Economic Development; (1) by the Department of
Natural Resources; (2) by the Department of Fish
and Game; (1) by the Department of Public Safety;
(1) by the Department of Transportation; (1) by
the Department of Revenue; (9) by the Department
of Environmental Conservation.
HB 172 An Act relating to kindergarten programs and
compulsory education; to identification required
upon enrollment in a public school; to those
grades that constitute elementary, junior, and
secondary school; and providing for an effective
date.
HB 172 was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendations" and with a zero fiscal note by
the Department of Education dated 4/18/95.
HB 191 An Act relating to the management and disposal of
state land and resources; relating to certain
remote parcel and homestead entry land purchase
contracts and patents; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 191 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
by the Department of Natural Resources and a zero
fiscal note by the Department of Fish and Game
dated 4/10/95.
HOUSE BILL 130
"An Act relating to agency review of public comment on
the adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations;
relating to the examination of proposed regulations,
amendments of regulations, and orders repealing
regulations by the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee and the Department of Law; relating to the
submission to, and acceptance by, the lieutenant
2
governor of proposed regulations, amendments of
regulations, and orders repealing regulations; and
requiring agencies to make certain determinations
before adopting regulations, amendments of regulations,
or orders repealing regulations."
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on
file]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Copy on
file]. Representative Kelly stated that the language of the
amendment would make writing the regulations more clear.
The being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #3. [Copy on
file]. Representative Kelly stated that Amendment #3 was
requested by the Department of Law and would add an
applicability provision. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS HB 130 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTIONS, it
was so ordered.
CS HB 130 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Department
of Administration, the Office of the Governor, the Office of
the Lt. Governor, the Department of Law, the Department of
Education, the Department of Health and Social Services, the
Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Public
Safety, the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, the Department of Environmental Conservation and
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
HOUSE BILL 191
"An Act relating to the management and disposal of
state land and resources; relating to certain remote
parcel and homestead entry land purchase contracts and
patents; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Therriault explained that HB 191 was a
housekeeping measure intended to clarify certain Title 38
statutes governing the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
management of State land and resources. HB 191 was intended
to bring greater efficiency to the management of state lands
without sacrificing public involvement in land use
decisions.
He concluded that the bill was not intended to be a complete
rewrite of Title 38, pointing out that it was supported by
3
the Administration in anticipation of streamlining state
government.
Representative Therriault MOVED to adopt work draft #9-
LS0766\M, Luckhaupt, 4/25/95, as the version before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, provided the Committee members a
sectional analysis of the legislation.
Representative Brown asked for further clarification of the
agricultural disposal section. Mr. Swanson replied that
Section #21 addresses preference rights and provides the
Department discretion to review the qualifications of those
bidding. Section #22 would change the terminology of the
approximate vicinity.
Representative Therriault noted that it was his intention
that when dealing with the Department regarding sale or
utilization of State land, the State should receive fair
market value of leasing and sales. Representative Brown
agreed with Representative Therriault's intention. She
asked if the legislation would address the conditions and
requirements attached to the agricultural disposal.
Mr. Swanson explained that those conditions would be a part
of that program. The initial portion of the lease requires
a development plan. Representative Brown asked the
Department's current plans for the agricultural disposal.
Mr. Swanson advised that the Division of Agriculture is
currently in charge of those parcels and that a small amount
of disposals continue to occur each year.
Representative Grussendorf asked if the work draft contained
language which could create management problems for the
Department. Mr. Swanson advised that the legislation had
been worked on for several months and that the Department
was satisfied with the result.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if the set net lease costs would be
substantially increased. Mr. Swanson noted that currently
only the administrative costs would be recuperated. The
leases range from $150-$300 per year depending on when the
lease was issued. Set net sites in the Cook Inlet average
selling price would be $24 thousand dollars. He noted that
the permit could not be sold without the lease and that
amount should include the total combined cost. Co-Chair
Hanley disagreed explaining that depending on the site
location, a person would pay much more than the amount
suggested by Mr. Swanson. Mr. Swanson agreed it would be
site specific.
4
Representative Therriault reminded Committee members that
those people were using State land for economic benefit. He
pointed out that in Statute a cap existed limiting the value
to $300 dollars.
Co-Chair Hanley pointed out "may" had been used in the
legislation. Currently, one does not need a lease. He
asked if everyone would be charged for tideland use or would
they not apply for a lease. Mr. Swanson replied that there
are currently two thousand set net licenses issued. When
the Department goes to "fair market value", some of those
will not continue their lease. Although, with the increased
permit cost, income brought to the State will triple.
Representative Brown questioned the impact of Section #29
which deals with post mining location corners. She asked if
that section would allow someone to stake a new mining claim
on the surface of land which is already owned. Mr. Swanson
responded, Section #29 would reserve the mineral estate as
required by law to the State which would allow anyone to
come in and stake whatever mineral interests exist. If
there is any discovery or development, compensation must be
made to the surface owner.
Representative Brown thought that Section #29 was worded so
as to allow a person to stake land prior to getting the
surface owners involved. She thought the language would
establish a mining conflict between the land owner and the
State. Mr. Swanson agreed, although, he noted that once the
earth is being turned over, a bond must be posted or
compensation must be made to the surface owner.
Mr. Swanson explained that Section #29, specifies that a
bond must be posted when the earth is turned except when
going in and posting the corners. That would be the only
case when a bond would not need to be posted.
Representative Brown asked how private surface parcels
currently are staked. Mr. Swanson noted that on State
disposal land, a variety of possibilities exist. If it were
a small subdivision, it would be closed to mineral entry
prior to the sale of the subdivision.
Representative Brown asked how that would be affected by the
change offered in Section #31. Mr. Swanson acknowledged
that current language would close it to mining but not to
mineral location. Those gaps would be closed.
Representative Brown inquired in passage of the bill, would
any current land parcels be affecting someone's residence.
Mr. Swanson commented that any small size surface disposal
done by the State would be closed after the mineral entry.
5
A conflict could be created within municipalities because
they are left open at their request due to mineral entry.
Representative Brown asked if the provision contained in
Section #29 would be available also to municipalities. Mr.
Swanson noted that they would be because the land originally
came from the State who reserves those subsurface rights.
The State controls what happens beneath the ground.
Representative Brown asked what mechanism would be available
to the surface owner to prevent staking of the claims on
their land. Mr. Swanson explained that there would be two
methods:
1. Request that the State close it to mineral
entry;
2. File their own mining claim.
Discussion followed between Representative Brown and Mr.
Swanson regarding the value of the surface being affected by
a mining claim and the surface versus the subsurface
bonding. Representative Therriault reiterated that the
legislation would allow the State to protect it's subsurface
rights. Representative Brown thought that Section #29 could
establish a situation of conflict and could cause problems
for those who have acquired service. Under current law, if
someone wanted to do that, they would need to negotiate in
advance the compensation. She understood that in the
language of the bill, once the staking rights had occurred,
the rights would then exist. Representative Brown noted
that the surface owner would be in a weakened position to
receive fair compensation for their property.
Representative Therriault pointed out that the State would
close the rights before the surface title was transferred.
(Tape Change HFC 95-103, Side 2).
Representative Brown asked if it would be a problem for the
Department if Section #29 was changed. Mr. Swanson
responded that Section #29 was requested by the Department,
although, pointed out that there was currently a Supreme
Court decision which negates the premise of Section #29.
Representative Therriault provided Committee members with a
memorandum response to that Superior Court decision from
Kerwin Krause, Mineral Property Manager, Department of
Natural Resources. [Attachment #1]. Mr. Swanson explained
why Section #29 would be more beneficial to the State
stating that if a higher subsurface value exists, then the
surface being used for should be discovered. He advised
that concern exists by private land owners being able to
control what happens to the State's subsurface.
6
Representative Brown agreed with Mr. Swanson, although,
noted concern of staking by private parties on private lands
without the State's knowledge, involvement or control. Mr.
Swanson advised that the State would know, as claims legally
have to be posted. He did not think inclusion of Section
Mr. Swanson instructed that the provision would not change
people posting "nuisance" mining claims. The State will
determine if the claim is valid. Representative Brown asked
whose responsibility would it be for the private land owner,
who had a "nuisance" mining claim on their property, to
execute the law and the decision. Mr. Swanson replied that
it would be the State's responsibility to respond to a
nuisance mining claim regardless of who the property was
registered to.
Representative Brown questioned how many "nuisance" claims
had been eliminated resulting from action of the Department.
Mr. Swanson did not know, although pointed out that the
number of "nuisance" claims have been decreasing due to
filing procedures.
Representative Therriault referenced Section #32 of the
legislation. Mr. Swanson explained the changes to that
section. The intent of that section makes State interest in
line with that of the federal government. Currently, an
alien from a country with "like privileges" can receive
authority to stake claims. That privilege has not been
exercised thus the inclusion of that language in Section
Representative Brown asked if provisions were contained in
the legislation which would affect the oil and gas leasing
program. Mr. Swanson stated that Section #30 contained one
provision which would affect oil and gas by removing the
requirement that the director of that division be bonded.
Representative Brown inquired if policy changes existed in
the proposed legislation. Mr. Swanson commented that policy
changes would be made to land disposals placing them under
fair market value consideration rather than "give away".
Representative Therriault added that Section #51 addresses
railroad and utility realignment.
Representative Brown questioned the status of land and
resources previously disposed of before 1982. Mr. Swanson
referenced two provisions; first, Section #52 which provides
a savings cost to the Department for home site permits. The
other provision deals with remote parcels and the way they
are issued. Representative Brown disclosed that she was the
7
owner of a remote parcel which could be affected by that
provision. Discussion followed regarding the restrictions
currently in law which reduce fair market value by 50%.
REED STOOPS, AJ ASSOCIATES, JUNEAU, testified in opposition
to Section #29. He explained that Section #29 had been
included in the bill resulting from a recent court case
regarding a mining claim located on private land. In that
case, the judge ruled that in order to do prospecting and
file a mining location on land which has been conveyed to a
private individual and not closed to private entry, it would
be the obligation of the person filing the claim to go to
the land owner for consent or to the Department and file a
bond to compensate for damages which might be done.
He continued, Section #29 would change that decision by
providing the person filing the claim permission to enter on
private property without the permission of the land owner
and without the permission of DNR to file a claim. He
emphasized that it would not make sense for someone to
trespass on private property without the permission of the
landowner. The current decision has been filed in the
Supreme Court, placing the land owner in conflict with the
mining claimant. Mr. Stoops noted that the factual
information provided in Attachment #1 was incorrect.
Representative Therriault advised that there are currently
techniques being developed to look into the ground in order
to find mineral deposits without drilling or digging. He
asked if there was an alternative to by-passing the land
owner, and going directly to DNR to receive approval and
posting for bond. Mr. Stoops noted that under current law,
the miner is allowed to go to the Department and file a
bond.
Mr. Swanson spoke against posting of bonds for the
aeromagnetic investigation activity. Mr. Stoops noted that
there exists a question if aeromagnetic investigation would
be sufficient to constitute a "discovery". He added, two
different circumstances are at stake, private and public
lands. Representative Therriault noted that since this
section was controversial and that there currently exists a
court case, he would not object to removing the Section #29.
Representative Brown MOVED to delete Section #29. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Therriault MOVED to report CS HB 191 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
8
CS HB 191 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Natural Resources and a zero fiscal note by
the Department of Fish and Game dated 4/10/95.
HOUSE BILL 57
"An Act relating to driver's licensing; and providing
for an effective date."
JEFF LOGAN, STAFF TO REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, testified in
support of HB 57 which would establish new rules for young
drivers. He stated that due to the high incidence of
accidents, injury and death among teenage drivers, many
states and other political jurisdictions are changing the
rules which grant teenagers the "license" to drive.
He added that language in HB 57 establishes certain
conditions during the provisional stage which include
restrictions on nighttime driving so that driving takes
place in less dangerous circumstances. Mr. Logan added that
HB 57 was designed to allow the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) to take advantage of new federal legislation. He
stated that passage of the legislation would help to stop
the teenage carnage on highways.
(Tape Change HFC 95-104, Side 1).
Mr. Logan provided a sectional analysis of the proposed
legislation.
Co-Chair Foster voiced concern on how well the legislation
would work in the village areas.
JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, stated that the Department
issues statewide a restricted license (off-systems license).
Currently, if an individual fifteen (15) years old was
driving, they would be required to have a driving permit and
to be driving with someone over nineteen (19) years of age
and who had been licensed at least one year. The bill would
not change that language. She continued that licenses are
issued in village offices, and are restricted in order that
those people can drive specifically in those village areas.
Co-Chair Foster reiterated that it was difficult to get
licenses in the village areas, indicating that the
legislation would make that process more difficult.
Ms. Hensley emphasized that the legislation was proposed to
save young adult lives. The graduated license system does
not require an individual to have any type of learning
driving experience. Young adults in Alaska learn driving by
9
"trial and error". She pointed out that there is no
driver's education available in the school system and that
28% of youth are involved in crashes.
Ms. Hensley advised that Alaska applied through the National
Highway Safety administration for a grant to help offset any
costs for implementation of the program. She added that if
the legislation was passed, the Department will show how
well the program works.
Representative Brown questioned the restrictions on young
adult drivers between the hours of 1 a.m. to 5 a.m.
Representative Parnell thought the primary factor of concern
was safety and noted that time of night was a dangerous time
to be driving noting that most crashes occur in the late
hours of the night. Representative Navarre thought the
legislation would create a financial burden on young adults
in requiring them to pay an additional $10 dollars. He
recommended adding Driver's Education classes to the high
school students curriculum.
Representative Therriault asked if other states had
incorporated this restriction. Ms. Hensley noted that the
National Highway Safety Administration has made grants
available to two states, California and Maryland. Both of
those states have reported a 5% reduction in crashes for
drivers between the ages of 15 - 17 years old.
Representative Parnell inquired about the $10 thousand
dollar fiscal request for the computer work station. Ms.
Hensley stated that the cost would include an entire station
with desk, work and computer table, chair, and everything
else needed to set-up a work space for one individual.
Representative Brown asked if the provisions in the bill
were tied to the federal requirements. Ms. Hensley stated
that the only provisions required would be the hours of
curfew and the age of the licensed driver who must accompany
the instructed young adult. She emphasized that this was
not a federal law, it was a grant.
Representative Parnell MOVED to report HB 57 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 57 was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal note by the Department of
Public Safety dated 3/10/95.
HOUSE BILL 172
10
"An Act relating to kindergarten programs and
compulsory education; to identification required upon
enrollment in a public school; to those grades that
constitute elementary, junior, and secondary school;
and providing for an effective date."
BOB EVANS, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ANCHORAGE, spoke in support of HB 172. The proposed
legislation would add a new statute that anyone enrolling a
child in a public school shall, not more than 30 days after
enrollment, provide to the public school a copy of the
child's birth certificate or other proof of the child's
identity if the child has not previously been enrolled in a
public school. He added that enacting the legislation would
add middle school to the definition of secondary school and
would allow for the sixth grade to be included as a part of
junior high or middle school.
Representative Parnell asked if money would be added to the
foundation formula in order to execute the proposed
legislation. Mr. Evans noted that costs would not increase
in any way.
Representative Martin asked if the legislation would make it
mandatory for the school districts. Mr. Evans understood
that the bill would provide the school districts to
incorporate kindergarten as part of the program. Although,
he added that it would not mandate that all schools must
have one. Representative Parnell pointed out that the bill
indicates that each school district shall offer kindergarten
services.
DUANE GUILEY, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, responded to Representative Terry Martin's
concern on increased costs to the school districts. He
stated that based on the analysis provided by the Department
of Education, the bill would carry a zero fiscal note.
There would be no increased costs to the State based on the
passage of the legislation. No new children would be
required to attend public schools and it does not mandate
each school district to offer kindergarten services.
Mr. Guiley pointed out currently State statute does not
speak to a minimum day for kindergarten. The bill will
establish in statute the minimum day for kindergarten and
would clear up any ambiguity although does not require
kindergarten where it does not already exist.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report HB 172 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
11
HB 172 was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal note by the Department of
Education dated 4/18/95.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:35 P.M.
12
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|