Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2006 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB57 | |
| HB493 | |
| HB445 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 445 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 470 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 493 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to the sale of certain state land to
adjacent landowners."
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH, SPONSOR, spoke to the bill. He
explained that the bill was introduced to induce the state
to purchase federal lands for sale in January, 2006, as well
as to clear the way for right away disputes over development
of private interests. He noted that his own family often
visited wilderness experiences in Alaska and commended John
Schnable from Haines who operates a small tourist gold mine
in Haines, Alaska. Mr. Schnable is experiencing difficulty
with state lands adjacent to his property. Representative
Weyreuch explained that the bill would allow the Department
of Natural Resources to negotiate sales of isolated parcels
of government owned land at fair market value to adjacent
land-owners. The land must be smaller than twenty acres and
completely enclosed. He expressed that he did not normally
participate in "special interest bills", but speculated that
this bill did not harm, but rather made a fair market
transaction possible. He also mentioned a proposed
amendment by the Department of Natural Resources that would
further protect the State's interests by adding a "best
interest finding" in the event of public easement. He
proposed that this added a level of government oversight,
while allowing an "arms' length" transaction.
1:45:28 PM
JOHN SCHNABEL, HAINES, TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
regarding the bill. He stated that the reason he wished to
negotiate a sale as opposed to an outcry auction was due to
the prohibitive upfront costs involved in such auctions. He
explained that he was developing 80 acres into a tourist
destination, and did not wish this work to be disturbed
should another party wish to purchase the small parcel
contained in his property. He noted he had invested over a
million dollars to keep his land in pristine condition, and
wished to keep it so. He mentioned he had no problem with
any right of way through the land, or any trail designation
if that should become applicable.
1:47:47 PM
DICK MYLIUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING LAND AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES testified via
teleconference. He explained that in most cases, when state
lands were sold it was through a competitive process,
although in certain circumstance state law allows dealing
with one individual through "preference rights". This bill
adds to a current preference right bill. He noted that this
usually took place when an individual had significant rights
or investment in the property. He noted that in this case,
the state had acquired a parcel of land through foreclosure,
making it a self-contained parcel, completely surrounded by
Mr. Schnable's other land. He explained it could not be
sold under existing preference right statutes, and the
public would not be interested since it was included in an
individual's property. He noted it had already been
surveyed, and a best interest finding would be completed
before the sale.
1:50:20 PM
Representative Chenault asked whether this was the only
parcel in this circumstance statewide. Mr. Mylius stated
that his Department was unaware of any other similar
parcels, although he speculated that there might be other
parcels in this situation. He noted that most State land
was acquired in large tracts, and this had been an
exception, acquired under foreclosure during the mining
registration law of the early 1960's.
Responding to a follow-up, Mr. Mylius confirmed that this
bill could be used for such a circumstance in the future.
Representative Kelly observed that the bill permitted rather
than instructed the Director. He asked what the price for a
twenty-acre parcel might be. Mr. Mylius responded that the
largest expense in this case was the public notice
requirement, which cost roughly $1 thousand, in addition to
a $2 thousand in staff time. He noted that last year two
new positions were established to deal with a backlog of
preference rights. He explained that this accounted for the
zero fiscal note.
1:52:57 PM
Responding to a follow-up by Representative Kelly, Mr.
Mylius noted that the applicant would not pay staff time,
but rather the newspaper publication costs.
1:53:30 PM
Representative Kerttula observed that with best interest
findings, the Department could protect against an individual
attempting to purchase a parcel with unique value. Mr.
Mylius confirmed that the Department could decide not to
grant the right to purchase.
1:54:18 PM
Representative Holm asked whether a sunset provision was
appropriate since this was a unique parcel. Mr. Mylius
responded that it might be a helpful tool to have in the
future for a similar circumstance.
1:54:50 PM
Representative Hawker referred to the "sale of an isolated
parcel" as referred to in the bill and asked how they would
interpret "isolated". Mr. Mylius stated that they
interpreted this as being unattached to any other block of
state land, since in this case it was totally surrounded by
private lands.
Responding to another question, Mr. Mylius confirmed that
the current preference right that deals with isolated
parcels most often have pertained to urban parcels that had
no public value and were unattached to other state lands.
1:56:40 PM
Representative Hawker asked whether this would apply to a
municipality that owned land that surrounded state property,
allowing them to petition for a preference right. Mr.
Mylius noted that municipalities already had other statutes
that allow the State to transfer land to them, such as
municipal entitlement. He noted that to his knowledge no
municipality had ever applied under the current preference
rights statutes.
1:57:54 PM
Representative Hawker asked whether there was any
exposure to the state that should be considered before
passing the bill. Mr. Mylius stated that there was no
additional exposure, and referred to the proposed
amendment, which ensured the best interest finding.
1:58:26 PM
Representative Foster commented that he had a 10-acre
Native allotment surrounded by State Land and wondered if
this provision would apply. Mr. Mylius noted that in this
circumstance, if an allotment were surrounded by state land,
it would not apply. He noted that a sale in this case would
be done through a competitive process.
1:59:39 PM
Representative Kelly asked whether, if several individuals
were interested in the same parcel, the "best interest
finding" would apply. Mr. Mylius confirmed that in this
case the public process would help determine the best
interest.
2:00:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS, HAINES, testified in support of
the bill. He expressed his knowledge of John Schnabel and
applauded his efforts over the years to develop the parcel.
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony.
2:02:16 PM
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED Amendment #1, 24-LS0319\Y.1,
Bullock, 3/31/06. Representative Joule OBJECTED.
Representative Weyhrauch noted that the Department of
Natural Resources had suggested the amendment after the bill
had moved out of the House Resources Commitee. He explained
that it was intended to provide further protection to the
State's interests, especially in providing access to State
waters.
SARA GILBERTSON, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, testified about the amendment.
2:03:45 PM
Ms. Gilbertson noted that the Department of Fish of Game
worked with the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Law to create the amendment. She explained
that there were instances of small parcels of land
completely surrounded by State land, when the State land
contained a water source. She stressed that the State
wished to ensure access to water, and suggested that they
add the proposed language, demanding a best interest finding
to be made by the Director before conveying a parcel. She
concluded that the finding would not affect the transaction
in question in Haines.
2:04:13 PM
The OBJECTION was REMOVED. There being no objection, the
Amendment PASSED by unanimous consent.
Representative Stoltze asked about the suggestion of a
sunset provision. Representative Weyhrauch reminded the
Committee that the testimony referred to the future need for
such a tool.
Representative Hawker pointed out that that the fiscal
note was indeterminate, rather than a zero fiscal note as
previously referenced.
Representative Weyhrauch expressed his hope that the state
of Alaska would create revenue through this bill.
Representative Kelly questioned whether the title of the
Bill should refer to State land rather than Federal Land.
Representative Weyrauch noted that the original title of the
bill referred to purchase of Federal Land.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HB 57 out of
Committee as Amended with an Indeterminate Fiscal Note (DNR)
and individual recommendations. There being NO OBJECTION,
the motion PASSED by unanimous consent.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|