Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/06/2022 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB219 | |
| HB120 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 219-TRANSFER PERSONAL USE CABIN PERMITS
1:05:31 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 219, "An Act providing for the transfer of
and addition of names to a personal use cabin permit for a cabin
on state land; and providing for an effective date."
1:05:55 PM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented SB 219. He said HB 219 would fix something
that is wrong with the way Alaska state government is being
administered. He stated that the bill is not a long-term fix,
but it would allow families with recreational cabins additional
time while the problem is solved. This problem, he explained,
was created by [House Bill 109], passed in 1997, which
terminated [the 1984 Personal Use Cabin Permit Program (PUCP)]
and gave Alaskans the opportunity to purchase the land they had
been leasing that had not yet been initiated by the [Department
of Natural Resources (DNR)]. In the 25 years since that bill's
passage, families have lost their cabins, he said.
SENATOR MICCICHE related that this issue came to a head for him
after receiving several calls from affected families, including
the family of Greg Bell, a friend of his killed in an airplane
accident who owned a cabin on the west side of Cook Inlet. He
said Mr. Bell's grieving widow was contacted by the state not
long afterward that their cabin would be lost. He explained
that SB 219 would allow a family to retain lease of their cabin
until a bill is passed that allows purchase of that land. In
the case of the Bell's, he continued, SB 219 would allow for a
new name to be put on their lease for as long as Greg Bell would
have lived in accordance with the life expectancy of the
National Center of Health [Statistics], which would be 28 more
years. The bill would allow other families to add an additional
name to their permits, he further explained, because the permit
program has been closed and the lease will go away. The bill
will allow more time, Senator Micciche reiterated, for coming to
a permanent solution given this problem will be growing as the
last names on these permits pass on.
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the committee would hear invited
testimony on SB 219.
1:10:05 PM
MARK BELL testified in support of SB 219. He thanked Senator
Micciche for bringing forth SB 219 and said he is Greg Bell's
older brother. He related that his father was a pilot and
hunting and fishing guide who in the 1970s or 1980s purchased
"the duck cabin" on the west side of Cook Inlet on the banks of
Big River where he, Greg, and their other brother spent their
summers growing up. Sometime after the cabin's purchase, he
recounted, DNR required a permit for use of the cabin, so his
father put the permit in Greg's name because Greg was the
youngest child, but the family has been unable to find that
original permit. He said that when their father died in 1987,
he, Greg, and their mother continued the family's business, High
Adventure Air Charter, Guides and Outfitters in Soldotna. He
stated that on 7/31/2020 a pilot who did not have a medical
license to fly flew into Greg's plane, killing Greg and all
passengers aboard. This devastation was hard enough, Mr. Bell
shared, but then Greg's wife received a letter from the state
notifying her that the duck cabin permit would expire, and the
cabin would have to be removed because Greg, the permit holder,
had died. He said that this cabin extended his connection to
remote Alaska, and he would like his kids, grandkids, and
friends to continue being able to use it. He asked for the
committee's help and said he would appreciate the opportunity to
renew the cabin's permit, possibly through Greg's son.
CHAIR PATKOTAK offered his empathy for the loss of a family
member.
1:21:16 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on SB 219.
1:21:36 PM
CHRIS LUITEN testified in support of SB 219. He related that
his 92-year-old father has a permit for a cabin in the Susitna
Flats area, and when his father passes away the cabin will be
taken away or burned down. The cabin is only accessible by
airplane, he related, and for many years his family has let the
[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] use the cabin for research on
migratory birds. He said he would like the opportunity to pass
the cabin to his children and grandchildren, and to have it
taken away by the state would be terrible.
1:23:29 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK closed public testimony on SB 219 after
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify.
1:23:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether these are trespass cabins on
state land that were permitted with a lifetime permit of the
permittee, of which 126 are remaining. She inquired about the
intention of the original because it doesn't seem from testimony
that there is an expectation of a permanent transfer or a deed,
but rather a permit transfer to extend the lifetime use.
SENATOR MICCICHE confirmed that it does not transfer a deed, it
only extends the current usage. He referred to a letter of
support from Commissioner Feige of DNR and said this has been a
pressing long-time issue for the Division of Mining, Land and
Water. While someone can call them trespass cabins, he stated,
many other areas have been opened in the meantime. There is a
list of the ones that are on the record, he noted, and these are
the people that legally got a lease for a cabin that was there
in the first place for whatever reason. There are thousands of
cabins around the state that are trespass cabins that are not
permitted and do not pay a state lease, he continued, but these
are the ones that are following the rules. He said SB 219 would
extend their lease with the hope that there will be a longer-
term solution in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she isn't trying to impugn people's
initial actions and doesn't know whether it comes from DNR that
these are trespass cabins. She pointed out that line 2 of the
sponsor statement says, "folks that had trespassed onto state
land and built a cabin." Regarding the reference to a long-term
solution, she asked whether the sponsor is meaning a transfer
from state ownership to private ownership of those individual
permit holders.
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that SB 219 is about extending current
leases. He said if the legislature does not approve a long-term
solution that includes a deeded piece of property, then that
will not happen. The 1997 law was to close out permits and
provide ownership of those cabin lands, he continued, and that
has not occurred.
1:28:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she would like to know from DNR where
this system broke down given there have been other land bills
from DNR to fix problems, but this has never been mentioned.
She said she would like to know if DNR is attempting to resolve
it anywhere else or if it is another temporary fix and the
ownership issue is not resolved.
SENATOR MICCICHE estimated that several hundred families have
lost the use of their cabins over the years without a temporary
Band-Aid. He said SB 219 is a Band-Aid so that more families
won't lose their cabins right now until there is a final
solution. These are the folks following, not breaking, the
rules, he stated, and nothing has been done since the 1997 law.
1:29:53 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Ms. Colles to address Representative
Hannan's questions.
1:30:15 PM
CHRISTIANNA COLLES, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining,
Land and Water (DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
responded that these cabins were in existence prior to the
legislation that allowed DNR in 1985 to authorize by permit
individuals who come to DNR to say who they would like to have
on the permit for the cabin. The statute, AS 38.04.035(4), was
repealed in 1997, she said. She explained that there has been
discussion about the other program that was established - the
remote recreational cabin permit program - which is a remote
recreational cabin staking program that DNR developed and is
competitive. The department couldn't provide a fix for the
personal use cabin permit because DNR hasn't been able to
establish a new statute that allows it to continue this program
following its 1997 repeal. Ms. Colles said almost half of these
are currently located in legislatively designated areas across
the state, so it's not an easy fix even if legislation is found
that allows DNR to convey these from state ownership. Most are
in the Northern [Region] and Southcentral [Region], she
continued, and none are currently in the Southeast [Region].
1:32:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether, since 1997, the department
has proposed legislation to resolve this issue and be able to
transfer from permits to deeds.
MS. COLLES replied that she is not aware of any such legislation
that the department has put forward, although there might have
been bills proposed in the legislature. She related that a
current bill before the legislature, SB 133, would allow DNR to
issue permits to individuals for recreational purposes. That
bill, she continued, would help DNR authorize these under a new
program and allow people to continue them without such strict
regulation like what is currently on the books. The department
cannot amend its regulations if it doesn't have a supporting
statute for those regulations, she stated, and a new statute in
SB 133 would provide a path for permitting as well as for a
lease and then eventually sale.
1:33:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS observed in the DNR document, titled "NRO
PUCP 2022," that there are [23] locations. He asked whether
these [23] cabins are all personal use cabins for the Northern
Region.
MS. COLLES responded she is unsure which document is being
referred to and so cannot answer the question.
SENATOR MICCICHE offered his belief that this list, provided by
DNR, is specifically the Susitna Flats, Trading Bay, and Redoubt
Bay area. He said he thinks there are 126, and these are for a
specific area.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said he wants to understand this and
directed his question to Ms. Boomershine.
1:35:08 PM
LAURA BOOMERSHINE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained
that the "NRO," the Northern Regional Office, is more the
Fairbanks area for the cabins. She said the second list is for
the Southcentral Regional [Office], but it is in a different
format than the other region. They are located only in those
regions, she stated, not in Southeast Alaska or other areas.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS concluded that there are two dozen cabins
in the north. He said it seems like DNR's assumption is that
fewer cabins are wanted. He asked whether gradually phasing
down the number of cabins is for environmental and game
management reasons.
MS. COLLES answered that that is not the department's intention.
She stated that since the statute was repealed in 1997 DNR was
not able to do any changes to the regulations allowing the
cabins to continue. She said DNR's understanding from when the
legislature created the statute in the 1980s and then repealed
it in the 1990s was that these cabins were to sunset;
individuals would be allowed to use the cabins and then over
time it would sunset, and the cabins would either come into
state ownership or be removed by the owners. The department's
understanding from its research on this specific program, she
added, was that it was more of a legislative will for it to
sunset.
1:37:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether any personal use cabins have
become public and whether the department manages public cabins
in these areas.
MS. COLLES responded that DNR manages public use cabins through
the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. She said there
have been discussions in the past about opening to public use
some of these cabins, including trapping cabins and others that
might be left on state land. The concern, she continued, is
whether it would then be a state responsibility to maintain them
and ensure they are safe for the public to utilize. She related
that communities have come together and obtained a permit from
DNR to utilize those cabins for safety cabins. She stated that
DNR is not against allowing cabins on state land, rather DNR
prefers to have somebody that is responsible for the cabins.
Ms. Colles said a statute is needed that gives DNR the authority
to authorize that cabin.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether any PUCPs in the areas of
Trader Bay, Redoubt Bay, Susitna Flats, Palmer Hay Flats, and
the Northern Region have been transferred into some manner of
public use sponsored by a local group and managed by the
department, for example.
MS. COLLES answered that there might be a few and she will get
that information to the committee.
1:38:50 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out that there are many different types
of cabin programs, many different types of cabins on state land,
and SB 219 addresses only a small subset of those many cabins.
He said there is no effort by the state to reduce the use of
private recreational cabins on state land. He related that the
reason for [House Bill 109] in 1997 was to rewrite the remote
cabin program to a program that would allow for either the sale
or lease of land for a remote cabin site. There are many other
programs of state land being issued for sale, he continued, and
committee members should not get the impression that that was
the reason for SB 219.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK related that he has run into a similar
situation with his trapping cabin permit as there is no transfer
after something happens to him; therefore, he said appreciates
SB 219. He urged that there be clarification on "what we can
do" and let those families continue using those cabins.
1:42:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised that half of the 126 cabins being
spoken of are in legislatively designated land areas. She asked
whether permanent transfer deeds of ownership would be allowed
on some of those lands or none of the lands.
MS. COLLES replied that DNR is disallowed from disposing of
lands within legislatively designated areas, so it would be a
complication DNR would have to work through to dispose of these
particular cabins and the property underlying them. She said
that in the Southcentral region those areas are Redoubt Bay
Critical Habitat Area, Susitna Flats, and Trading Bay, and in
the Northern region they are Minto Flats and Tanana Valley.
1:43:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the bill would allow a one-
time transfer, or a continual sequence of permit transfers, or
an addition.
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that the bill has two parts. He said
one part would allow an immediate family member to add, one time
only, an individual from his or her family to the permit. The
other part, he stated, would apply to permit holders who die
before their average life expectancy age as per the National
Center for Health Statistics. So, he explained, if someone dies
before his or her average life expectancy is up, the family
could submit the name of an immediate family member to assume
the privileges of that permit and that permit would be valid
until reaching what would have been the life expectancy of the
original permit holder. Senator Micciche noted that the current
average life expectancy of Alaskans is 78.8 years old, so it
would be a one-time extension to the natural [life] expectancy
of [the permittee] who has passed. He said he has tried to
provide a solution under SB 219 for the issue families are
facing.
1:46:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the Bell family is the only
one of the 126 that is captured by the retroactive date of 1/1/2
or whether there are others. She further asked whether the Bell
permit is no longer in the count of 126 because technically it
is expired.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that it does capture the Bell family
and he doesn't believe the Bell family is included in the 126
because their permit is not active. He deferred to the
department to answer further. He related that Caribou Hills on
the Kenai Peninsula is an area of state land with many cabins.
Most of them are permitted, he continued, these are the folks
who followed the rules. Not all the cabins are the remote
application, he added, they are far less remote, and it is a
populous place on a February weekend.
1:49:05 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK offered his belief that Representative Hannan's
question was speaking to page 3, Section 2, line 9, where it
states: "that expired on or after January 1, 2020, and before
the effective date of this Act". He asked how many permits have
expired during that window which would then potentially be able
to be extended.
MS. COLLES replied that 45 files have closed since 1/1/2020.
She said DNR would have to do some research on the reasons why
those files were closed or have people come tell the department
that they qualify under this new statute. She related that
notification for permit renewal is sent by mail and oftentimes
notifications are returned and new addresses for those
individuals cannot be found. So, she continued, DNR is not
always sure why a permit is closed and whether it is due to the
permittee having passed away. She clarified that some permits
do have additional individuals listed on the original 1985
application. She said she is unsure why the Bell family was not
able to add additional individuals or whether they were unaware
that they could, but at the time many people added 5-10 extra
people onto the permit. The rule was they just had to be alive
at the time and she believes they had to be [at least] 18 years
of age, she continued, so DNR can go to those individuals if
notified that someone has passed away.
CHAIR PATKOTAK offered his understanding that under SB 219, if
any of those 45 died before their life expectancy age, an
extension could be filed, and it would be the only extension
that those 45 could apply.
MS. COLLES confirmed that is correct.
1:51:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, if SB 219 is passed, asked whether the
sponsor's expectation is that DNR would reach out to those 45
lapsed permit holder units to discuss if they are eligible or
whether the sponsor's perception is that the onus would be on
the permittees families to read about it in the newspaper and
know they could [contact DNR].
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that his office will be collecting all
45 names and contacting them personally. He noted that the
construction dates on some cabins would make them 72 years old.
He stated he wasn't aware of the number of 45, but that if the
individuals are not beyond their [life expectancy date] he hopes
they do get additional use of their cabin until there is a
permanent solution.
1:53:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked [who owns the cabins].
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that the cabins are owned by
individuals but are located on state land owned by the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY surmised the individuals are responsible
for the maintenance. He stated that this is a great bill and
that the Bell family [situation] is a tragedy. He asked how far
back the bill goes to fix the loss of cabins over the years.
CHAIR PATKOTAK responded January 2020.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked whether it should go back further
than that.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that a lot of the cabins are gone. He
said he didn't want to go back far enough that it might reopen
old wounds that have already healed, but he did want the recent
losses to be considered.
1:55:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated he doesn't have any issue with the
bill. He posited that if owners of these cabins no longer wish
to maintain them at some point in the future, it would be nice
for DNR to have a process of looking at taking over maintenance
of those cabins and renting them out like other state public use
cabins because it would be a public benefit.
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that he thinks one of the reasons for
the 1997 bill was the fear of obligating the state for providing
additional services, and SB 219 doesn't do that. He stated that
if there was an option by the state to do so, there are groups
like the Cabin Hoppers that would be willing to take on the
financial obligation of cabin maintenance. He said some cabins
have been removed but he doesn't know the number, and that the
leases have certain requirements [for cabin maintenance]. He
said he hopes a solution is found for these families' legal
lease usage, but if not, then an option should be looked at that
would allow an organization to maintain them for the public.
1:57:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she has served on the House
Resources Standing Committee for four years and has seen several
statutory changes proposed by DNR to resolve land use conflicts,
but never once has DNR referenced trying to solve a problem for
individuals who are current lease holders. She said it is
extremely frustrating to hear DNR say it has been waiting since
1997 for the legislature to resolve this. A citizen
legislature, she pointed out, doesn't know there is a problem at
an agency level unless the agency says it has a problem and asks
for a fix. She noted that the committee will be considering a
bill today that focuses on commercial transfers, which she finds
frustrating because she feels more compulsion to fix issues for
individual Alaskans than for corporate Alaska, although there is
a need for both. She said SB 219 isn't fixing the problem and
DNR is saying it is waiting for the legislature to fix the
problem, and she hopes the commissioner gets that message.
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that DNR has been aware of the
problem for a long time. He said he thinks the department was
feeling some of the pressure and he thinks SB 133 is worth
looking at because it is the first solution that has come to
bear in the 10 years he has been in the legislature. In the
meantime, he continued, hundreds of families have lost the use
of their cabins forever.
2:00:14 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:00 p.m. to 2:01 p.m.
2:01:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to report SB 219 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero]
fiscal note. There being no objection, SB 219 was reported out
of the House Resources Standing Committee.