Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/10/2000 03:20 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 252-RS 2477 STATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted the committee has held one hearing on SB
252 and that a committee substitute (CS) has been proposed which
is substantially shorter than the original bill. The CS deletes
the entire listing and allows the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to add to its list. The most significant change to the CS
is a provision that suspends, at the request of a municipality
with platting authority, the requirement to record parcels of
land of less than 41 acres. The result of that provision will be
that the 40 acre parcels that many municipalities disposed of
will not be recorded. The CS does not remove the existence or
non-existence of RS 2477s. It also suspends the recording
requirement in situations where a municipality has platting
authority and alternative access and has smaller parcels on which
it is difficult to locate an unsurveyed RS 2477.
SENATOR MACKIE moved to change the number "40" to "41" on line 6,
page 2 and to adopt the CS (Version 1 GS2004\H) as the working
document of the committee. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
Number 1909
CHAIRMAN HALFORD proposed amending the title to read,
"An Act relating to listing, survey and mapping of RS 2477
rights-of-way, maintaining records concerning RS 2477
rights- of-way, and suspending the recording requirement on
parcels of less than 41 acres until surveyed, if requested
by a municipality with platting authority."
SENATOR TAYLOR moved the title change as a conceptual amendment
to allow the legal drafters to craft the appropriate language.
There being no objection, CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced a conceptual
title change was adopted.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD took teleconference testimony.
MR. BOB LOEFFLER, Director of the Division of Mining, Land and
Water, DNR, made the following comments. DNR believes that RS
2477s on private property should be recorded so that future
purchasers of that property have notice that an encumbrance on
the title exists. DNR is very concerned, however, with the
provision in SB 252 requiring it to record encumbrances in places
where none exists. The record over the years shows that people
do not want an encumbrance recorded on a title when in fact the
RS 2477 does not pass through their property. DNR can support
the requirement to record within a municipality if the
municipality does not object, but outside of municipalities there
are many small lots, and given DNR's current level of data, DNR
is not exactly sure where the trails are. Recording those
parcels will be unfair to the private property owners. DNR hoped
the bill would not require it to record parcels of less than 160
or 40 acres unless it can verify that the trail goes through that
parcel.
MR. LOEFFLER also informed committee members that the bill
contains a deadline of one year for trails listed in legislation
which is over one year old, therefore the deadline has already
passed. In addition, eliminating the 12 trails from the bill
that do not meet the requirements of a RS 2477 may lead people to
think they are authorized to trespass. He said his main concern
is the provision that requires DNR to record trails when it
cannot verify that those trails exist.
In response to Mr. Loeffler's concerns, CHAIRMAN HALFORD said
with regard to the time lines, the bill does not amend the time
lines in existing law; those time lines were not followed by DNR
last year. Regarding DNR's main concern, the long term survey
costs, those costs could amount to $100 million, so the short
term answer is to accurately use GPS and other location systems.
Use of those systems will prevent parcels of any significant size
from being recorded on the wrong pieces of property. He said
that although questions remain about small parcels outside of
municipalities, he does not know how to resolve that without
losing the notification provisions of the bill. He repeated that
the bill does not create or extinguish any rights. It merely
provides notice to the public in the best way possible short of
spending $100 million.
MR. LOEFFLER stated that regarding the use of GPS or other short-
cut technologies to determine where trails are with respect to
property boundaries, the more creative DNR can be, the better off
everyone will be. He said he agrees on a philosophical level
with what Chairman Halford is saying but he believes it is wrong
to record on people's property until DNR knows that an
encumbrance exists.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD remarked that the requirement to record on a
parcel that is not on the trail will force someone to do the
research to prove otherwise. At least a potential buyer will
know that research needs to be done.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if DNR supports the changes in the CS.
Number 2219
MR. LOEFFLER replied the only provision that DNR is concerned
about is the one that requires it to record on small parcels
outside of municipalities.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that requirement is in existing law.
MR. LOEFFLER said that is correct.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Loeffler if he supports the specific CS
before the committee which does not require DNR to record on any
parcels smaller than 40 acres.
MR. LOEFFLER remarked that the previous version was neutral with
respect to whether a parcel was inside or outside of a
municipality. DNR does not like the provision that requires it
to record parcels outside of a municipality but the other changes
in the CS are of much less concern.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the issue is the obligation of notice
versus the potential of giving a person a notice of encumbrance
that will require that individual to prove it is on the wrong
piece of ground. That action might be damaging to the person's
emotional well being but he does not know what the answer is. He
noted the issue deals with conflicting values that are both
legitimate.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the problem would be resolved had the State
had an ongoing program of surveying RS 2477s and fighting for
them. Now, none of this will be resolved until DNR uses a little
common sense in the way it manages State lands, even if it just
deals with one RS 2477 at a time.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted this is a Senate bill. He suggested, "If
we took out the provision that said the 40 acres in the title,
not in the bill, but that the 41 acre line only applies to
municipalities with platting authority, our bill would still say
that it applies inside municipalities with platting authority but
the Administration could make their pitch to try to carry that to
the unorganized areas or the smallest communities without
platting authority to the other body. I don't know if there's a
- it's not an area where there's an absolute right or wrong
because you are dealing with people on both sides that have very
legitimate concerns."
SENATOR MACKIE said a case can be made either way.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he would not object to backing away from at
least that part of the title and letting the bill go through the
process to see what the collective wisdom of both houses is on
that question.
SENATORS GREEN and MACKIE felt that would be a reasoned approach.
TAPE 00-22, SIDE B
SENATOR MACKIE asked Mr. Loeffler his opinion of the Chairman's
suggestion.
MR. LOEFFLER said he would appreciate that opportunity and that
he does understand that there are legitimate concerns on both
sides of the issue.
SENATOR MACKIE moved to delete the words, "if requested by a
municipality with platting authority."
SENATOR LINCOLN asked for clarification.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that the text of the bill would remain
the same but the title would be amended to delete the phrase, "if
requested by a municipality with platting authority" to allow the
House to debate that question and make that change.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted without objection, the conceptual title
was amended.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Loeffler if he feels that language is
better.
MR. LOEFFLER said he does.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved CSSB 252(RES) to the next committee of
referral with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
With no further business to come before the committee, CHAIRMAN
HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|