Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/14/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR17 | |
| HB361 | |
| HB276 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 361 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 361-DISPOSALS OF STATE RESOURCES/ROYALTIES
1:24:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 361, "An Act relating to the Alaska Land Act,
including certain lease, sale, and other disposal of state land
and materials; relating to production royalties from miners;
relating to rights to use state water; and providing for an
effective date."
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CO-CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony on HB 361, but closed it
after ascertaining that no one from the public wished to
testify. He noted that HB 361 is by the House Rules Standing
Committee at the request of the governor.
1:26:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt [Amendment 2], labeled 27-
GH2717\A.5, Bailey, 3/13/12, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 5, following line 19:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 11. AS 38.05.115 is amended to read:
Sec. 38.05.115. Limitations and conditions of
sale. (a) The commissioner shall determine the timber
[AND OTHER MATERIALS] to be sold [,] and the
limitations, conditions, and terms of sale. The
limitations, conditions, and terms shall include the
utilization, development, and maintenance of the
sustained yield principle, subject to preference among
other beneficial uses. The commissioner may negotiate
sales of timber [OR MATERIALS] without advertisement
and on the limitations, conditions, and terms that are
considered to be in the best interests of the state.
Within a one-year period, the commissioner may not
negotiate a sale without advertisement to the same
purchaser of
[(1)] more than 500 M.B.M. or equivalent
other measure of timber [;
(2) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (3) OF THIS
SUBSECTION, MORE THAN 25,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIALS;
OR
(3) MORE THAN 100,000 CUBIC YARDS OF
MATERIALS TO A COMMON CARRIER HOLDING A LEASE UNDER
AS 38.35].
(b) Negotiated sales not exceeding 50 M.B.M. or
the equivalent other measure of timber [OR 2,500 CUBIC
YARDS OF MATERIALS] are exempt from the provisions of
AS 34.15.150.
(c) The limitations of this section are not
applicable to timber that [WHICH] becomes state
property under the provisions of AS 45.50.210 -
45.50.235."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 13, line 28:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 16, line 9:
Delete "Section 19"
Insert "Section 20"
Page 16, line 10:
Delete "sec. 23"
Insert "sec. 24"
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR SEATON invited Mr. Wyn Menefee of the Department of
Natural Resources to explain the amendment.
1:27:49 PM
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Central Office, Division of
Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
reminded members of the committee's [3/5/12] discussion about
splitting out the statutes between timber sales and material
sales to alleviate confusions. However, he explained, this
proposed provision was inadvertently omitted from the original
draft of the bill. Amendment 2 would add a new bill section,
Section 11, to separate the two by eliminating materials. All
the pertinent aspects on doing materials sales are already
covered by what has been submitted and Amendment 2 would just
take it out of the portions that remain in AS 38.05.115 that
deal with timber sales. Due to the addition of this new
section, Section 11 would also renumber the following sections
in the bill.
1:29:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that "2,500 cubic yards of material" would
be removed by the amendment but not inserted anywhere else in
the bill. He requested an explanation of that removal.
MR. MENEFEE replied that the bill would add a new section,
Section 38.05.550, which would establish material sites or
disposal areas from which materials would be sold through
negotiated sales. Because the division would have already
notified the public with a notice and best interest decision
that it will be progressively selling all of the materials out
of an area, a volumetric restraint is no longer needed. The
proposed new Section 38.05.555 on page 7, line 22, deals with
negotiated sales and personal use of materials. Under this
proposed section the director may negotiate the sale of any
amount of materials from a source or site designated under AS
38.05.550(b), so once a site was established the materials could
be extracted until gone. Therefore, this restriction of volume
would not need to be re-referenced.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
1:32:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 27-
GH2717\A.6, Bailey, 3/13/12, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 6, line 22:
Delete "in fee"
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected.
1:32:24 PM
MR. MENEFEE, at the request of Co-Chair Seaton, said the purpose
of Amendment 3 is to make a correction. He explained there is a
two-step process when the state receives title to the land.
First, is a tentative approval from the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM); second, is that after BLM surveys the land the
state gets patent to it. The connotation of "in fee" means
patented land and would not include tentative approval land, yet
the state sells material from tentative approval land all the
time. By removing "in fee", line 22 would state "All materials
owned by the state ...." This would incorporate both tentative
approval lands and the patented lands.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
1:33:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 27-
GH2717\A.7, Bailey, 3/13/12, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 15, line 23:
Delete "and quarry stone"
Insert "stone, pumice, and common clay"
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected.
1:34:01 PM
MR. MENEFEE, at the request of Co-Chair Seaton, said Amendment 4
deals with the definition of materials. He explained the word
"includes" [on line 22] means that the materials could be more
than what is listed on lines 22-23. However, the division felt
that by specifically stating "quarry stone" people in the future
might think there was an obvious reason why it stated only
quarry stone. Stone is a general term that includes quarry
stone, and use of the word "stone" will preclude any connotation
that the division was purposely trying to get rid of pumice,
common clay, or general stone. He specified that locatable
minerals are not included as stone; for example, a diamond is a
locatable mineral
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
1:35:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 27-
GH2717\A.8, Bailey, 3/14/12, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 15, following line 23:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 41.23.470(b) is amended to read:
(b) The commissioner may conduct only a
negotiated timber [OR MATERIAL] sale under
AS 38.05.115 to provide for personal use, including
house logs and firewood, or for a use incidental to
the construction of access, or for habitat
enhancement."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 16, line 10:
Delete "sec. 23"
Insert "sec. 24"
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected.
1:36:12 PM
MR. MENEFEE, at the request of Co-Chair Seaton, explained that
Legislative Legal and Research Services brought another statute
to the division's attention that mixed references of timber and
material sales and that referred back to the old AS 38.05.115.
Because [the old statute] included material in that definition,
a new citation for the new statute would have to be referenced.
This provision sits within the Susitna Recreation River's
section of statute, so it deals only with recreational rivers.
The division would not need this material statute here to
conduct negotiated material sales because it would already be
addressed under the proposed new Section 550 to AS 38.05.
Therefore, this would not benefit the division for selling
materials even in recreational rivers. To eliminate confusion,
the division proposes to take out "or material" so there is no
"or material" referencing back to the old AS 38.05.115; thus
clarifying that there is not a conflict.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
1:37:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK moved to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 27-
GH2717\A.4, Bailey, 3/13/12, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 8, following line 17:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) Notwithstanding (a) - (e) of this section,
for the purpose of creating incentives for the
development of peat as a source of heat or power, the
director shall negotiate the sale of peat to
individuals, organized or unorganized communities,
tribal governments, or private profit or nonprofit
organizations. Under this subsection, the director
shall provide,
(1) for personal use by an individual or
for testing or product development for commercial use,
not more than 20,000 cubic yards of peat a year at no
cost for a period not to exceed 10 years; or
(2) for users requiring more than 20,000
cubic yards a year, the amount of peat required by the
user for a period not to exceed 10 years at the price
of
(i) 20 percent of the representative
regional sales price determined by the director under
AS 38.05.550(d)(1); or
(ii) 20 percent of the fair market value
determined by an appraisal completed under AS
38.05.550(d)(2), if the applicant provides the
appraisal at the applicant's expense and the appraisal
is approved by the commissioner."
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected.
1:38:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK explained that his idea is to make it
possible for people in Western Alaska, one of the most
economically depressed areas in the state, to explore whether
peat is viable for home heating and for economic development.
Peat development is currently too stringent; for example, a
person in McGrath has tried for 15 years to develop peat but the
obstacles have been too great. This would lower the obstacles.
1:39:24 PM
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that during the committee's 3/5/12
hearing on HB 361, Representative P. Wilson asked how much peat
it would take to heat an average home. During that same meeting
Representative P. Wilson talked about a man in Petersburg who
heated his home with peat. Mr. Verhagen reported that he
contacted the man in Petersburg who said he cuts his peat into
six-inch cubes and burns them in a Blaze King stove but did not
know how much he burned on a yearly basis. Mr. Verhagen said he
therefore did "a very unscientific calculation" with how much
the man is currently burning and extrapolated it out to come up
with a figure of 13.5 cubic yards per year. He did this
calculation because he understood that Representative P.
Wilson's question was really going to whether 20,000 cubic yards
is way more than a person would need to heat his or her home.
The answer is yes, way more. However, the purpose is to
incentivize the use of peat as a source of heat or power. The
sponsor's hope is that anyone wanting to heat with peat would be
able to harvest it like a person would do with firewood. An
additional hope is that it might dawn on some of those people
that with these large numbers available they might want to start
a business based on peat and, further, that peat pellets could
be produced for peat stoves. Perhaps on the Kuskokwim River
someday, peat pellets will be shipped downriver for fuel rather
than bringing fuel oil upriver. Perhaps biomass boilers will
someday be installed to burn the local peat. This would provide
protection from what might happen if oil prices continue to rise
and oil production continues to decline.
1:41:34 PM
MR. VERHAGEN added that while doing research he learned that 20
percent of all home heat in Ireland comes exclusively from peat.
It would be nice if people in rural Alaska could almost entirely
cut their dependency on oil. He reiterated that the sponsor put
the large numbers in his amendment as an incentive for those
wishing to begin experimenting with whether to start a peat
business. This way, the significant expenditures to do this
would not have to include the price of peat along with the price
of the other very expensive necessary equipment.
1:42:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6, which he had written as follows [original
punctuation provided except for some formatting changes]:
Line 7: Delete material
Insert: (1) for personal use by an individual not to
exceed 200 cubic yards per year for personal use at no
cost
Line 8 and line 9: Delete material
Insert: (2) for testing or product development for
commercial use, not more than 2000 cubic yards per
year at no cost for a period not exceed 5 years
Renumber accordingly
Line 10: Delete "20,000"
Insert "2,000"
REPRESENTATIVE DICK objected for discussion purposes.
1:42:42 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained he has expressed his concern to
Representative Dick that these numbers are so large they will
hinder support and passage of the bill. He said he talked to
the person in Petersburg who has been burning about three cords
of wood. He estimated that in Interior Alaska about 10 cords of
wood would be burned. Using these figures he calculated that an
equivalent amount of peat would be about 160 cubic yards per
year. Amendment 1 to Amendment 6 would add a cushion by
providing 200 cubic yards of peat per year at no cost. He said
this figure for personal use would prevent the opening of other
unintended things.
1:44:21 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON continued his explanation of Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 6, explaining that his reason for
deleting lines 8 and 9 and inserting "(2) for testing or product
development for commercial use, not more than 2000 cubic yards
per year at no cost for a period not exceed 5 years" is because
anybody wanting to develop commercial use would have a prove-up
time along with the free 2,000 cubic yards of peat. This is a
lot of peat and would allow for product and market development.
He further explained that Amendment 1 to Amendment 6 would
replace "20,000" with "2,000" cubic yards for the 10-year period
at 20 percent of the regional sales price. This would give the
person developing a business a break for an additional 10 years
after which time the peat would be at the regional sales price.
The objective of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 6 is to
provide usage by Alaskans to get development going and to allow
a cushion time for faster recovery of expenses incurred and to
encourage future business, without the state giving away
commercially valuable materials all the time into the future.
1:46:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said these numbers have been bantered around
quite a bit. He estimated it would take about $150,000 in
equipment and a good quality pellet machine to begin an
industrial operation. Saying a startup time of five years would
likely not be enough time to determine whether it would work,
he suggested a startup time of at least eight years.
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that his proposed five years would
be at no cost and then it would go for another ten years at one-
fifth of the regional sales price amount. Thus, there would be
state participation in the commercial aspect. He requested Mr.
Menefee to provide DNR's perspective on this.
1:48:47 PM
MR. MENEFEE agreed that Co-Chair Seaton's recalculation for
personal use is correct and people probably would not exceed 200
cubic yards. Regarding the number of years and volume, he said
the committee can decide what those thresholds are. He said he
thinks the division would interpret "for testing or product
development for commercial use" to be that the individual would
have to see if the peat can actually be manipulated into pellets
and packaged for commercial development. As such, the actual
physical testing would obviously not take over 2,000 cubic
yards. If the interpretation of "product development for
commercial use" includes developing a market, it is hard to say
exactly how long that will take. Once it is figured out how to
harvest efficiently and make the pellets, it must be determined
who the pellets will be sold to, how far the pellets will need
to be shipped, and other normal business startup things. The
real question is how far to go supporting business development
versus just product testing, because in his view 2,000 is plenty
sufficient for actual testing. If talking about whether a
business can really be developed, then it is the committee's
call. If the committee is trying to give the free value to
develop the market, a longer time period really does incentivize
it. Since there is no market at this point the market value
right now is going to be pretty low and therefore 20 percent
will be pretty near free to start with. Establishing a market
could be for one individual in one area, but if talking about a
broader market it is probably going to take multiple developers
to do that. If that is the case it is going to take a while for
that market value to climb to start making a significant
difference.
1:52:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the division's interpretation
would be that the products developed during that product
development phase could be sold.
MR. MENEFEE replied he thinks the intention is that it could be
sold because the language says it is for commercial use and he
therefore thinks the division would interpret it that way. The
real question is how long does product development take versus
running a business and that is the part that is hard to call.
1:52:41 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised that whatever the number of years
chosen for inclusion in the bill, that number will be the term
for "at no cost" for the 2,000 cubic yards, even if product
development takes less time. He asked whether it would be a
problem if somebody did not want to use 2,000 cubic yards and
would this require changing the language in some manner.
MR. MENEFEE responded that the way the language currently reads
in [Amendment 6] a person wanting only 10,000 cubic yards of
peat instead of 20,000 could do that, and a person wanting a no-
cost time period of 5 years instead of 10 years could do that.
The division would not necessarily issue it automatically for
the 10 year period; it would depend on what the person asked
for. Moving on to the second provision [in Amendment 6], he
said that if somebody wants the peat at no cost for only two
years to figure out whether the product will work and then wants
to begin paying the 20 percent after the two years, the division
would sell it for 20 percent. The division would not
automatically make the contract for 10 years if someone is
asking for a shorter period of time. If, however, the committee
wants the division to make it an automatic 10 years, then the
language would need to say "will issue for a period of 10 years"
rather than "a period not to exceed 10 years".
1:55:27 PM
MR. MENEFEE, in response to Co-Chair Seaton, confirmed that
under the current language any developer could come to the
division and request whatever the developer desires.
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired whether the language would need to be
changed to accommodate somebody requesting 1,000 cubic yards for
10 years instead of more than 20,000.
MR. MENEFEE first noted that there is a differentiation between
personal use and commercial development. If somebody wanted
10,000 cubic yards for commercial purposes for a certain number
of years, the division would ask whether it is for testing or
product development. If not, and the person is investing in
starting a business in a market that already exists, he said he
would interpret the language in Amendment 1 to Amendment 6 to
say that the 2,000 cubic yards would be sold at the 20 percent
for another 10 years. So, if the committee wants a business to
get that 20 percent in its first 10-year cycle, then the
language probably would need to be modified because that is not
what it currently says.
1:58:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related his conversation with Mr. Jim
Vanderpool of McGrath in which Mr. Vanderpool said it would take
at least 25,000-30,000 cubic yards just to begin to test whether
this was viable, although Mr. Vanderpool did not specify whether
this was per year. Therefore, the intent of Amendment 6 is to
make it wide open to incentivize this without jeopardizing the
bill itself. He suggested either increasing the cubic yards per
year and the number of years, or saying that the first 30,000
cubic yards will be for development and everything after that
will be at the 20 percent.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether Representative Dick is meaning
that after the first 30,000 cubic yards the person would pay 20
percent of the fair market value of the regional sales price
instead of the regional sales price.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK replied he is suggesting the first 30,000
cubic yards be free and after that it would be at the 20 percent
for the next 10 years.
2:01:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ commented it is difficult because it is
unknown what amount would be practical for a new business. She
inquired whether it could be left up to the Department of
Natural Resources to determine an appropriate price.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded he has had that conversation and
the thought was that as long as the current staff was in place
he would be happy. However, if the department or staff changes
down the road then the whole landscape might change. He allowed
the committee is trying to make a decision without any real
facts. If he errs, he said he would like to err on the side of
incentivizing because peat in the ground does not make the state
any money and it would provide an industry in Western Alaska,
which currently has no industry.
2:02:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested Representative Dick to repeat his
conversation with [Mr. Jim Vanderpool of McGrath].
REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered that Mr. Vanderpool said it would
take a minimum of 25,000-30,000 cubic yards to find out what was
doable and whether it was marketable.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked what Mr. Vanderpool's background is.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK replied Mr. Vanderpool has been passionate
about peat and has studied it on the Internet, but this has not
been done. He added that Mr. Vanderpool has only gotten as far
as sending out peat from McGrath to be pelletized.
2:03:57 PM
MR. VERHAGEN said he is getting the idea that maybe three things
are being discussed when only two things were being asked for.
He inquired if Co-Chair Seaton is asking whether after the first
30,000 [cubic yards] suggested by Representative Dick the price
would be at 20 percent forever. He said he does not think that
is what the co-chair is referring to; but rather after it gets
to the end of the second [10 years] it goes to the fair market
value.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded that that is not what he heard, which
is why he was asking.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:04 p.m. to 2:06 p.m.
2:06:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE understood that under Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6, an amount under 200 cubic yards a year would be
considered personal use, above 200 and up to 2,000 would be
incentivized a bit more by not requiring a "royalty", and an
amount of more than 2,000 would be considered a commercial
operation. He said the quantity gates seem to be reasonable,
but suggested that 10 years is a more reasonable timeframe than
5 years. The only other thing is the differentiation between
testing or product development because the amendment to the
amendment does not cover a situation of somebody wanting 1,500
cubic yards a year for a small commercial sales operation. To
address this he suggested deleting "testing or product
development".
CO-CHAIR SEATON confirmed there is no disagreement among the
committee members on the personal use issues in the proposed
Amendment 1 to Amendment 6. Regarding product development, he
understood the suggestion is for less than 2,000 cubic yards to
be at no cost for 10 years and more than 2,000 cubic yards would
cost the 20 percent.
2:08:23 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said it would be fair to say that somebody using
more than 200 but less than 2,000 would not necessarily be a
full-blown sales operation and it could reasonably be assumed to
be a testing or product development. An individual in a village
may try to supply just that village. It therefore should be
left open that it could be for commercial use. He asked whether
he should offer an amendment to delete "testing or product
development" from Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 6.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:09:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 6 was
adopted.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Amendment 6, as
amended.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:10 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.
2:11:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified Amendment 6 has not yet been adopted
and the committee has adopted Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 6 to: remove from (f)(2) the phrase "for testing or
product development"; and replace "5" years with "10" years.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK objected for discussion purposes.
2:13:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK maintained that 2,000 cubic yards a year is
not very much - perhaps a couple hundred dump trucks. He asked
whether the committee would agree to 5,000 cubic yards.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that by taking out "for testing
or product development" this would be purely for commercial use.
Allowing that Amendment 6 is to get something going, she asked
at what point the state does not give something away that
belongs to everybody.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK conceded it is blurry, but said the idea is
to incentivize that which does not yet exist. Removing testing
and product development from the language does not mean it is
not going to happen; there is going to be a tremendous amount of
testing and product development. He can see this individual
investing $150,000 in real equipment and trying to get that
money back through this operation. He maintained that 2,000
cubic yards would not be commercial because it would only be a
couple hundred dump trucks or less than one truck per day.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she would be comfortable with a
larger quantity for a shorter time because if that was
inadequate the person could come make the case.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he is willing to discuss numbers.
2:15:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said the concept he is pushing is that anything
less than 200 cubic yards a year is a reasonable amount for
personal use. The next gate above that is 2,000 cubic yards a
year. The question is where the appropriate gate is for what
would be considered testing and product development because
5,000 cubic yards a year is an awful lot of testing. Besides
testing it would also include establishing a market and lining
out product transportation to that market. Few people live in
the region being discussed, so 2,000 cubic yards a year will go
a long way. Once 2,000 cubic yards is exceeded, it will be
actual sales to people and it would therefore be reasonable to
assess some kind of a royalty.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted that 2,000 cubic yards per year for
10 years is 20,000 cubic yards total. A friendly conceptual
amendment could be 4,000 cubic yards per year for 5 years
because it would still be a total of 20,000 cubic yards. There
could be two categories.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ reminded members of Mr. Menefee's statement
that there is currently not a commercial market for peat, so 20
percent of the [regional sales price or fair market value] for
that material is going to be very, very cheap.
2:18:26 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether DNR would interpret that the 2,000
cubic yards would be free and anything above that would fall
into the 20 percent of the regional sales price.
MR. MENEFEE said his interpretation would be four categories,
provided he is understanding all of the amendments correctly:
personal use of less than 200 would be free; up to 2,000 would
be free for a certain period of time; 2,000-20,000 would be at
20 percent of the fair market value or regional sales price for
a certain period of time; and once any of the aforementioned is
exceeded the price would be at full value.
2:20:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he thinks Co-Chair Feige is trying to
get to 4,000 per [year] for 5 years, which still keeps the
20,000. Addressing Representative Munoz's comment about
determining a value for the peat given there is not currently a
market, he said the value is going to be the sweat equity and
equipment put in by the investor to get a business going, not
the product.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related that Mr. Vanderpool has spoken to
DNR in the past, and the problem was that DNR had to set a
value. However, there was only one person in the state who was
able to assess the value of peat and that person had only
assessed peat in regard to the road system. The assessed value
given by that person was prohibitive for Mr. Vanderpool to even
get started. Therefore, what is being done here is to come up
with something that is more realistic that could function on the
Kuskokwim and Yukon rivers.
2:22:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Mr. Vanderpool would be
available to provide an idea of what these proposed quantities
mean to him. For example, how much he is likely to need at the
outset and what would be a successful amount for him to use.
She further asked whether Representative Herron's proposal is
for 2,000 [cubic yards] a year for 10 years or 4,000 a year for
5 years, or is the proposal that just one of those two elements
be picked.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK replied that Mr. Vanderpool told him it
would take a minimum total of 25,000-30,000 cubic yards to find
out whether it is doable.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER subsequently suggested that the amount be
a total of 20,000 cubic yards without any mention of number of
years.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he could live with a first sum total of
30,000 and everything after that to be paid at full value.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted there would then be no need for a
time limit.
2:23:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, regarding royalty provisions, inquired
whether there might be other statutes where this amendment would
be more appropriate.
MR. MENEFEE confirmed there other statutes that have deferred
payments, but said those statutes are referring to other types
of activities like oil and gas leasing. In looking at statutory
construction for how division staff would figure out a process
and what to charge, it would make sense to put peat in the area
of material and that is what is at hand right now. Logically,
this is the best place in statute to deal with the peat
question. He said the real issue is that he cannot tell the
committee whether now is a good time to do it.
2:25:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he could live with 200 cubic yards per
year for personal use, and for commercial use the first 30,000
free with everything after that at full market value.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 6
and moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 to Amendment 6, which
would "in [paragraph] (2) delete 'for testing or product
development', delete '2,000', replace it with '30,000 total',
delete 'per year'".
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected.
2:26:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that adopting Conceptual Amendment 3
to Amendment 6 would amend [paragraph 2 in Amendment 6, as
amended,] to state "for commercial use, not more than 30,000
total cubic yards at no cost for a period not to exceed 5
years".
REPRESENTATIVE DICK objected, saying 10 years would be a more
realistic period.
2:27:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE modified his proposal for Conceptual Amendment 3
to Amendment 6 to state in paragraph (2) "for commercial use,
not more than 30,000 total cubic yards at no cost for a period
not to exceed 10 years".
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that Conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment 6 would eliminate the change from "20,000" to "2,000"
cubic yards that was adopted in Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 6.
2:28:22 PM
MR. MENEFEE inquired whether the 20 percent in the original
paragraph (2) of Amendment 6 would still be there under the
modified Conceptual Amendment 3 to Amendment 6.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said it is still there and needs to be addressed
in the next conceptual amendment.
There being no objection, modified Conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment 6 was adopted.
2:28:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that modified Conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment 6, as adopted, changes Amendment 6, as amended by
Conceptual Amendment 1, by: deleting "for testing or product
development", deleting "2,000" and substituting "30,000 total",
deleting "per year", and changing "5" years to "10" years.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:30:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE maintained the language needs to be clarified to
delineate that these are "either/or" propositions. He moved to
adopt Conceptual Amendment 4 to Amendment 6 which would insert
"or" after [paragraph] 1, as amended, and insert "or" after
[paragraph] 2, as amended. Thus, an individual could receive
personal use at no cost; or could receive 30,000 cubic yards
over a period of [10] years; or could receive no more than 2,000
cubic yards per year, not to exceed 10 years.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, in response to Representative Gardner, explained
that if a person took a total of 30,000 over a period of 10
years that is 3,000 a year. However, the next paragraph states
that for users taking more than 2,000 cubic yards a year the 20
percent must be paid. Therefore, it cannot be both of those; it
must be one or the other.
2:32:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes, stating that
quantity amounts are now being used. So, to make things
consistent, the first 30,000 cubic yards would be free, after
that first 30,000 the price would be 20 percent for the next 10
years, and after that 10 years the price would be the regional
sales price.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE concurred.
CO-CHAIR SEATON added that with the change in structure a per
year amount would conflict with how everything would work. He
said it is now 200 for an individual, up to 30,000 is free for a
commercial operation, after 30,000 the price would be 20 percent
for the next 10 years, and after those 10 years the price would
be the regional sales price.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE withdrew Conceptual Amendment 4 to Amendment 6.
2:34:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 5 to Amendment 6 to
insert "or" between the [paragraphs]. He said it would then
read, "for users requiring more than 30,000 total cubic yards,
the amount of peat required by the user for a period not to
exceed 10 years at the price of" and then continue on at "20
percent of the regional sales price".
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 5 to Amendment 6
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK thanked the committee for its work on his
proposed amendment.
2:35:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected to Amendment 6, as amended,
noting that the entire state has ownership of state-owned
materials. He pointed out that AS 38.05.555 deals with
negotiated sales and personal use of materials and that all of
the text in this statute states the director "may" negotiate
sales and "may" negotiate sales under certain circumstances.
However, Amendment 6 very clearly states that the director
"shall" negotiate the sales and "shall" provide under the
various circumstances which the committee has just amended. He
said he objects to that sort of principle because the director
should have some latitude in making those discretionary
negotiations. He moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 6 to
Amendment 6 that would strike "shall" in line 4 and line 6 and
insert "may".
REPRESENTATIVE DICK objected for discussion purposes, expressing
his fear that future DNR staff may not be as friendly as the
current staff in regard to this issue; continuing with "shall"
would put a degree of certainty into this provision. He
maintained that any loss to the State of Alaska would be next to
nothing and if any problems developed in the future the
legislature could step in.
2:39:05 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested that DNR offer its comment on "shall"
and "may", given that peat sales could occur throughout the
state, not just in Representative Dick's district. He pointed
out that while the intent is to incentivize this in rural Alaska
it would apply to all of Alaska, so some discretion is needed
because this could happen in an urban area like Fairbanks.
MR. MENEFEE replied that DNR would prefer "may" because no
matter how much the department tries it cannot anticipate all of
the scenarios than can play out. For example, under "shall" the
indication is that DNR would have to provide peat to someone
wanting to develop it in an area such as Juneau, even though a
best interest decision must still come in which the division
director must decide whether it is in the state's best interest
to sell the peat in the first place; there could be other
competing uses for the land. "May" gives the flexibility to
determine in the best interest decision whether it is a good
idea to sell the peat in the first place.
2:42:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 6 to Amendment 6 was
adopted.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to report HB 361, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 361(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR017A.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 17 |
| Sponsor Statement for SJR 17.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 17 |
| HB0361A.pdf |
HRES 3/5/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 361 |
| Sectional Analysis of HB 361.pdf |
HRES 3/5/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 361 |
| Briefing Paper_HB361_030512.pdf |
HRES 3/5/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 361 |
| Aleutian Island Risk Assessment.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 17 |
| SJR 17 Background-Pressing Issues in the Arctic.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 17 |
| SJR 17 Background Task Force on Oil Spill Preparedness and Response (3).pdf |
HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 17 |
| DEC Letter Feb 29, 2012.PDF |
HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 17 |
| SJR017-1-2-022912-STA-N.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 17 |
| HB0361-1-2-022912-DFG-N.pdf |
HRES 3/5/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 361 |
| HB0361-2-2-022912-DOT-N.pdf |
HRES 3/5/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 361 |
| HB0361-3-2-022912-DNR-Y.pdf |
HRES 3/5/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 361 |
| HB276 Sponsor Statement version D.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 276 |
| Sectional House Bill 276 version D.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 276 |
| Oil Basin Final re areas version D 3.8.12.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 276 |
| HB276 CS versiion D 3.7.12.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 276 |
| HB 361 HRES 3-5-12 Responses.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 361 |
| Leasing actions required by HB361.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 361 |